www.sfplanning.org

Memo to the Planning Commission HEARING DATE: JANUARY 31, 2019

RE: Overview of Housing Strategies and Plans Staff Contact: Miriam Chion, Citywide Division Miriam.Chion@sfgov.org, 415-575-9194

INTRODUCTION This memo provides a second housing briefing to the Planning Commission and focuses on housing strategies and plans in San Francisco, the Bay Area, and California. The first briefing, on January 17, 2019, focused on economic trends and the housing pipeline and provided context for the housing strategies and plan priorities.

Planning Commissioners’ input to the first briefing are guiding this second briefing, which describes the housing initiatives that will address the Commissioners’ questions and concerns. Key points of the Commissioners’ input include:

• Discussion of regional housing production decline in recent decades, and current and proposed strategies to reverse this trend. Assessment of changes in density, infrastructure investments, jobs, rates of return on investment and population growth.

• Discussion of relationship between job growth, revenues and needed housing investments at the regional and local level.

• Identifying priorities during periods of strong growth and during periods of decline. Leveraging public resources to maximize housing opportunities during recession periods.

• Review of critical elements of housing construction cost and strategies to support investments.

• Assess large number of units in the pipeline and its relationship to construction timing and housing production capacity within existing zoning.

Housing Protection, Preservation and Production has become a useful framework to connect the housing needs of past, present and future populations. These three Ps also help us acknowledge challenges across populations to prioritize strategies for comprehensive solutions. When compared to other cities, San Francisco has and continues to develop strong housing protection and preservation policies that allow us to reduce the rate of displacement of vulnerable populations. While the expansion of some tenant protections have been hampered by state laws such as Costa Hawkins, housing protection and preservation strategies have strengthen in San Francisco. Community collaborations like MAP2020 have made a difference in community stability and vitality. Legal services to residents at risk of eviction, funding for small site acquisitions of affordable units, and cultural districts are among other successful strategies. Overall, local strategies have contributed to reduce the displacement of the Latino population out of the city but increased economic pressures have led to loss of low- and middle-income households and African American population.

Memo to the Planning Commission Hearing Date: January 31, 2019 Overview of Housing Strategies and Plans

2

As discussed in the previous briefing, our recent housing production has increased compared to previous decades and compared to other cities in the region. San Francisco has produced more housing in the last 19 years (over 46,500 net units) than in the 35 years before 2000 (44,750 net units). The 1,500 affordable net units built in 2017 also set a record. The city is contributing substantially to house the growing regional workforce, far more than other cities.

Long term plans developed with robust community engagement such as the Better Neighborhoods and Eastern Neighborhoods opened new housing opportunities that are being realized today. Major entitled projects -- like Parkmerced, Treasure Island, and Candlestick Point -- will add more than 30,000 net units to our housing stock. More recently, a wide range of housing initiatives (ADUs, HOME-SF, Housing Sustainability Districts, inclusionary affordable housing, etc.) are implementing a wide range of housing options from in-law apartments to market-rate and affordable units in new high-rise towers. The record number of over 70,000 net units in the housing development pipeline is the result of much planning work and collaboration with communities. In addition, the City has expanded its funding capacity for the production of affordable units through a new housing bond and inclusionary housing requirements.

Still, given the scale of the economic growth in the city and the region and the desire of San Franciscans to retain our city’s social, economic and cultural diversity, more housing will be needed, particularly housing affordable to middle and low-income households.

The sections below provide an overview of the multiple strategies that can help San Francisco achieve reasonable housing affordability for current and future residents. The first two sections cover State and Bay Area initiatives, followed by a section on ongoing efforts in San Francisco. The purpose of this overview is to understand the wide range of efforts, identify the most effective combinations and assess the potential to address our most pressing needs.

STATE INITIATIVES

The State of California has long considered housing affordability an issue of statewide concern. There is widespread agreement at the state level that all of California has underbuilt housing for decades, with disastrous effects for low-, moderate- and middle-income households. The scale and breadth of the state’s affordability crisis since the Great Recession has led to increased interest and involvement from the Governor, legislature, and various State agencies. The Department provides input on state legislation when appropriate and implements applicable state laws in a proactive and timely manner. As an example, the Department issued guidance and an application for SB35 streamlining projects the day the law became effective and has entitled several affordable developments under the new law.

SB375 and Sustainable Communities Strategies The implementation of Senate Bill 375, Sustainable Communities Strategy, has opened a new alignment of transportation investments and land use changes that supports the production of housing close to transit. While this legislation did not come with funding, it has supported the reallocation of resources to support housing that could respond to the needs of our population growth, it is encouraging suburban cities to find places for multi-family housing and services, it is prioritizing transportation investments in places of housing production.

Memo to the Planning Commission Hearing Date: January 31, 2019 Overview of Housing Strategies and Plans

3

Senate Bill 2 Senate Bill 2, passed in 2017, imposed a fee on certain real estate transactions to establish a permanent, ongoing funding source for affordable housing development. The revenue collected is to be distributed to local municipalities as planning grants, to advance work in the following priority areas:

1. Rezone to Permit By-right 2. Objective design and development standards 3. Specific plans or Form Codes coupled with CEQA streamlining 4. Accessory Dwelling Units and other innovative building strategies 5. Expedited processing

In 2019, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) plans to release $500,000 to San Francisco for preparation, adoption and implementation of plans that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production. The Department is working in coordination with other City agencies to secure this funding, some of which may go toward projects listed below in the ‘Draft Housing Program’ section of this case report.

RHNA and Housing Elements Senate Bill 828 and Assembly Bill 1771, both of which passed in September 2018, make significant changes to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment/Allocation (RHNA) process, as outlined in a memo to the Commission sent on July 12, 2018. While it is too early to tell, the likely effect of these bills will be to increase the RHNA goals for most, if not all, Bay Area municipalities during the next cycle (2024-2031). San Francisco’s next Housing Element, due in 2022, will be expected to include policies, plans and programs to meet these higher production targets.

Governor Newsom’s Housing Proposals During his campaign, Governor Newsom often discussed a statewide homebuilding goal of 500,000 units per year. Since taking office, the Governor has signed an Executive Order requiring an inventory of all excess state lands that may be suitable for development as affordable housing, and threatened to withhold transportation revenues from cities that do not meet new housing production targets. The Governor’s proposed budget for 2019-2020 includes $7.7 billion to address housing and homelessness throughout the state. Included in this budget is $1.75 billion to “spur housing development” as follows:

• $500 million for incentives to localities that create new housing • $250 million for technical assistance to help cities streamline and ramp up housing approvals • $500 million in tax credits (increased from $80 million) • $500 million for construction of moderate-income housing

Memo to the Planning Commission Hearing Date: January 31, 2019 Overview of Housing Strategies and Plans

4

Senate Bill 50 Senate Bill 50 was introduced in December 2018 by Senator Scott Wiener, the chair of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing. The bill contains many of the same provisions as last year’s SB827, and allow eligible residential projects in qualifying locations to receive an “equitable communities incentive” in the form of exemptions from certain local planning controls. The below table describes the bill’s proposed eligible geographies and bonuses:

Geography Exempt from local density controls?

Exempt from local minimum parking requirements?

Exempt from height limits lower than

Exempt from max FAR requirement lower than

Job rich area or within ¼ mi of high quality bus stop

Yes Exempt from any requirement higher

than 0.5/unit

N/A N/A

Within ½ mi of transit stop

Yes Yes 45 ft 2.5

Within ¼ mi of transit stop

Yes Yes 55 ft 3.25

SB50 includes several notable changes from the last version of SB827:

1. Height Increases: Proposed minimum enforceable height limits have been lowered, compared to SB827. Cities would now only be prevented from enforcing height limits below 45 or 55 feet within ½ and ¼ mile of a transit stop, respectively. Projects in eligible areas outside those radii would be exempt from density and certain parking requirements, but not local height controls.

2. Inclusionary Requirement. SB50 would require a project to include a minimum percentage (not yet specified) of on-site affordable housing to qualify for a bonus. Local inclusionary laws, if mandating a higher percentage, would take precedence.

3. Inclusion of “job-rich area” geography. SB50 would add another category of geography where the bonus would potentially apply. This “job-rich” category is not yet defined, but would be based on indicators such as proximity to jobs, high area median income, and high-quality public schools.

4. Exclusion of “sensitive communities”. Sensitive communities (not yet defined) would be able to opt out of the “equitable communities incentive”, and have until 2020 to come up with an alternative, community-led plan that meets the same goals and standards of SB50.

5. Tenant Protections. Any property that has had an Ellis Act eviction in the 15 years prior to application, or contains housing occupied by tenants in the seven years prior to the date of application is not eligible for the “equitable communities incentive”.

SB50 has not been amended since introduction on December 3, 2018. The first committee hearing will likely take place in March, and the bill must pass out of the Senate by May 31 if it is to continue. Staff will continue to monitor the bill as it evolves and proceeds through the legislative process, and will provide analysis and reporting as requested.

Memo to the Planning Commission Hearing Date: January 31, 2019 Overview of Housing Strategies and Plans

5

REGIONAL INITIATIVES Over the past decade, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission have been working on an alignment of housing policies and transportation investments. Priority Development Areas (PDAs) were created to provide planning and infrastructure investments for the production of housing close to transit and services. While PDAs have expanded across jurisdictions and new urban places are emerging in traditional suburban areas, the pace of economic and job growth have created a much higher demand for shelter.

CASA The CASA initiative, launched by ABAG and MTC in partnership with foundations, nonprofits, housing developers and other organizations, has resulted in the “CASA Compact,” a “15-year emergency policy package to confront the housing crisis” in the Bay Area. On January 17th, 2019 the ABAG Executive Board approved the CASA compact. The compact offers a comprehensive approach to housing affordability based on the “three Ps”(Production, Preservation, Protection). It includes 10 policy elements focused on tenant protections, housing inclusion and capacity, approvals processes and timelines, and affordable housing funding and coordination. The compact will require implementation through various actions including legislation at the state level and potential regional or local ballot measures.

San Francisco already has a number of the policies called for under CASA including a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance (Element #1), Rent Stabilization for existing tenants (Element #2), and Legal Counsel for tenants facing eviction (part of Element #3). San Francisco’s protection policies in most cases are stronger than those included in CASA, however, adoption of these policies more broadly in the region would not reduce protection in San Francisco and would be an increase in protections for many cities. Other elements of the compact would represent changes for both San Francisco and the region. For example Element #5 calls for Minimum Zoning Near Transit (similar in concept to SB 50/SB 827) with up to 36 foot heights allowed for development within a half mile of bus lines with minimum service levels and 55 foot heights within a quarter mile of rail stations and ferry terminals. This element also includes significant protections for existing tenants and housing as well as requirements for inclusionary housing in areas where new housing would be created. Elements #9 and #10 call for changes focused on funding and building affordable housing, including regional funding measures (#9) and a new regional housing entity that could collect revenue, invest in housing developments, lease and hold land, and provide technical assistance. While San Francisco has a strong local housing development agency in the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, many cities lack this local capacity or significant funding.

Plan Bay Area The region’s long-range plan, Plan Bay Area, focuses on coordination of land use, housing, and transportation planning to reduce greenhouse gases emissions while addressing economic and social concerns. Shifting away from 20th century patterns of auto-oriented growth and greenfield development, Plan Bay Area envisions mostly in-fill growth in urbanized areas. This regional vision is implemented through locally designated PDAs, mostly centered around transit and jobs. PDAs represent an attempt to facilitate growth within the existing urban footprint, coordinate growth with transportation investments, and align regional goals with local land use decisions. The PDA process has not been without criticism, however. For example some areas with excellent access to jobs and opportunity (represented by high-performing schools, parks , and services) are not designated PDAs while many PDAs have significant concentrations of people of color and people with low incomes, raising displacement concerns around heightened growth. Some of these concerns may be addressed in an upcoming version of Plan Bay Area under development now.

Memo to the Planning Commission Hearing Date: January 31, 2019 Overview of Housing Strategies and Plans

6

DRAFT HOUSING PROGRAM The Planning Department’s housing work includes a range of efforts including long range housing policy development to improve understanding and expand policy options, implementation of local, regional, and state policies to address housing needs and improve affordability, and neighborhood- level policies to stabilize communities while accommodating additional housing. Efforts such as the Housing Affordability and Community Stabilization Strategies projects (discussed more below) focus on longer term housing policy and community stabilization solutions and will help the Department prepare for the 2022 Housing Element and RHNA process as well as think more comprehensively about what San Francisco is doing and can do to address local and regional housing goals. Other efforts such as adoption of Housing Sustainability Districts, Cultural Heritage Districts, and MAP 2020 represent implementation efforts in specific neighborhoods to produce and preserve housing and support communities.

Housing Affordability Strategies (HAS) The Housing Affordability Strategies (HAS) project will provide a framework to help City staff, policymakers, and the public evaluate how our housing policies and plans work together to improve housing affordability, particularly for low and moderate income households. The HAS will analyze the impacts of key policies related to production of both affordable and market rate housing as well as preservation of existing affordable housing and protection of tenants. The HAS will be a collaborative effort between the Planning Department and a consultant team with expertise in policy analysis, housing finance, and affordable housing policy. In addition, Planning is coordinating with the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) and other city agencies focused on housing.

The HAS will also include extensive engagement with technical experts, stakeholders, and the public. Planning and MOHCD are currently conducting 10 community workshops in districts around the City to ask members of the public questions about their housing needs, community development needs, fair housing, and long range housing planning to inform projects including the HAS. This outreach process will help to inform the policy analysis of the HAS project and builds on other outreach including the release of the housing survey and Housing Needs and Trends report conducted in 2018.

Over the next year, the HAS will identify key policies for deeper analysis, develop analytic methodology and conduct policy analysis, collect data on housing production, preservation, and affordable housing investment, seek additional feedback from the public, stakeholders, policymakers, and colleagues, and develop a report with policy analysis and policy recommendations. Planning hopes to complete the project by the end of 2019 or beginning of 2020.

HAS Key Tasks Time Frame

Outreach to public, stakeholders, and city colleagues Dec 2018- March 2019

Collect data on housing production and affordable housing investment Fall 2018-Spring 2019

Select policy tools for deeper analysis Spring 2019

Develop methodology and conduct analysis Spring- Summer 2019

Outreach to public, stakeholders, and colleagues on initial analysis Spring- Summer 2019

Refine policy analysis and develop strategies document Fall 2019

Release Strategies Document Fall 2019-Winter 2020

Memo to the Planning Commission Hearing Date: January 31, 2019 Overview of Housing Strategies and Plans

7

Community Stabilization Strategy (CSS) The Community Stabilization Strategy (CSS) is an inter-agency effort to provide City agencies, decision-makers and the public the comprehensive analysis and tools they need to stabilize our vulnerable populations as the City changes. Planning staff worked with MOHCD and UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project (UDP) to update the UDP mapping of neighborhood change. With this map, the city can better identify and respond to displacement in the city’s neighborhoods. Planning staff are currently working to compile and analyze existing stabilization programs and policies included in our Community Stabilization Toolkit as well as make recommendations to enhance existing policies and develop new policy tools not yet in practice in San Francisco. The CSS policy analysis and recommendations will likely be complete by Spring/ Summer of 2019 and will inform the stabilization policies included in the HAS project.

Housing Sustainability Districts In 2018, San Francisco became the first municipality in the state to take advantage of AB73 when it created the Central SoMa Housing Sustainability District (HSD) as part of the Central SoMa Area Plan. HSDs allow for ministerial approval of qualifying projects, and are intended to incentivize provision of on-site affordable housing and payment of prevailing wages to construction workers. This year the Department will explore creation of additional HSDs throughout the city, in areas that have already been zoned to accommodate dense housing. Potential future HSDs include existing and in-process Area Plans and select HOME-SF areas.

Cultural Districts Cultural Heritage Districts offer a tool to identify, preserve, and celebrate the cultural assets of neighborhoods associated with particular cultural, ethnic, and racial groups.. These assets include community organizations and institutions, significant buildings, community-serving business, and cultural festivals and other arts activities. So far, various cultural districts have been established in the city including Japantown, Calle 24, and SoMa Pilipinas. Numerous other communities around the city have expressed interest in establishing cultural districts to help to preserve local community and culture in the face of ongoing change, growth, and development. In 2018, the Board of Supervisors added to the existing cultural district ordinance providing additional definition and tools to support cultural districts.

Board of Supervisors Legislation Various Supervisors have expressed interest or intent to develop housing-related local legislation. Recent example include a right-to-purchase proposal by Supervisors Fewer and Ronen, which would provide a first right to purchase multifamily residential buildings for sale in San Francisco to qualified nonprofit organizations with an established history of preserving affordable housing in San Francisco. The Department will provide analysis and input on this, and any additional pieces of housing legislation, and will present all such proposals before the Planning Commission.

Memo to the Planning Commission Hearing Date: January 31, 2019 Overview of Housing Strategies and Plans

8

Draft Housing Program Given the complexity and diversity of housing initiatives within the city as well as at the regional and state levels, the Planning Department is organizing its multiple efforts on housing implementation, policies and plans towards effective partnerships and products that respond to the needs of our communities. The chart below describes five major areas: three of them focused on the neighborhood, city, and region and state initiatives. A fourth area identifies community engagement and data analysis as essential elements to any successful strategy. The fifth area recognizes the substantial coordination with our partner agencies -MOHCD and OEWD- as well as potential new partners that can bring new expertise and resources to the housing field.

CONCLUSION San Francisco, the Bay Area and California are committed to provide housing solutions to the scale of the challenge. This means providing healthy and affordable housing for our current population and future generations. This means housing 1.1 million people in San Francisco, 9.3 million in the Bay Area and more than 45 million in California by 2040. This also means retention and expansion of our middle class with good jobs, reduction of displacement of low-income communities, and housing choices and stability for the African-American and Latino communities.

Reversing the suburban pattern of growth has not been an easy task. But the number of multi-family housing units constructed has been increasing. In the last five years almost all of the units (99%) permitted for construction in San Francisco were in multi-family structures; in comparison, the rate is 68% for the Bay Area. This necessary change is the result of community initiatives to expand affordable housing options, major organizing by the environmental community, and collaborations across private and public sectors to build housing close to services and transit.

Memo to the Planning Commission Hearing Date: January 31, 2019 Overview of Housing Strategies and Plans

9

The continuing economic growth in San Francisco can drive more housing construction as well as support public resources to address affordability today. At the same time, local long term housing plans and strategies will provide new opportunities for future generations. The depth of the housing challenge, however, requires regional collaboration and State resources to achieve major solutions.

To sum up, our housing strategy will support:

• Enabling new sites and supporting construction of entitled projects while this growth cycle lasts and beyond. The Director of Housing Delivery is focused on this task. The Planning Department is targeting SB 2 funding to develop additional streamlining tools.

• Protection and preservation of affordable housing to retain the income and ethnic diversity that makes San Francisco a vital and healthy city. (Small Site Acquisition, COPA, CASA, Housing Affordability Strategies, Housing Element, Community Stabilization Strategy)

• Participation in regional collaborations to support initiatives that can expand housing funding and infrastructure investments that can accommodate the incoming 2 million people in the Bay Area. (Plan Bay Area, CASA)

• Strengthening community engagement and innovations to ensure appropriate housing responses to current and future local needs as well as local contributions and compromises towards a healthy and just city. (Housing Conversations, Housing Innovations)

• Identifying new places, new forms, and new neighborhoods that can house future generations. It takes time to envision and enact changes that can support new affordable housing options. Addressing social, cultural and historical perspectives will allow changes that respond to our community needs and visions. Attention to this work today will provide robust options tomorrow. (Plan Bay Area, Housing Affordability Strategies, Housing Element)

Attachments:

1. Senate Bill 50 2. CASA Compact 3. Correspondence from David Tipton

SENATE BILL No. 50

Introduced by Senator Wiener (Coauthors: Senators Caballero, Hueso, Moorlach, and Skinner)

(Coauthors: Assembly Members Burke, Kalra, Kiley, Low, Robert Rivas, Ting, and Wicks)

December 3, 2018

An act to add Chapter 4.35 (commencing with Section 65918.50) to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, relating to housing.

legislative counsel’s digest

SB 50, as introduced, Wiener. Planning and zoning: housing development: equitable communities incentive.

Existing law, known as the Density Bonus Law, requires, when an applicant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or for the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents.

This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a development proponent seeks and agrees to construct a residential development, as defined, that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project, as those terms are defined; the site does not contain, or has not contained, housing occupied by tenants or accommodations withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with specified law within specified time periods; and the residential development complies with specified additional requirements under

99

existing law. The bill would require that a residential development eligible for an equitable communities incentive receive waivers from maximum controls on density and automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5 parking spots per unit, up to 3 additional incentives or concessions under the Density Bonus Law, and specified additional waivers if the residential development is located within a 1⁄2 -mile or 1⁄4 -mile radius of a major transit stop, as defined. The bill would authorize a local government to modify or expand the terms of an equitable communities incentive, provided that the equitable communities incentive is consistent with these provisions.

The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature to delay implementation of this bill in sensitive communities, as defined, until July 1, 2020, as provided.

By adding to the duties of local planning officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

line 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 4.35 (commencing with Section line 2 65918.50) is added to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government line 3 Code, to read: line 4 line 5 Chapter 4.35. Equitable Communities Incentives

line 6 line 7 65918.50. For purposes of this chapter: line 8 (a)  “Affordable” means available at affordable rent or affordable line 9 housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families of extremely

line 10 low, very low, low, or moderate incomes, as specified in context, line 11 and subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 line 12 years.

99

— 2 — SB 50

line 1 (b)  “Development proponent” means an applicant who submits line 2 an application for an equitable communities incentive pursuant to line 3 this chapter. line 4 (c)  “Eligible applicant” means a development proponent who line 5 receives an equitable communities incentive. line 6 (d)  “FAR” means floor area ratio. line 7 (e)  “High-quality bus corridor” means a corridor with fixed line 8 route bus service that meets all of the following criteria: line 9 (1)  It has average service intervals of no more than 15 minutes

line 10 during the three peak hours between 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, line 11 and the three peak hours between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m., inclusive, on line 12 Monday through Friday. line 13 (2)  It has average service intervals of no more than 20 minutes line 14 during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, on Monday through line 15 Friday. line 16 (3)  It has average intervals of no more than 30 minutes during line 17 the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, on Saturday and Sunday. line 18 (f)  “Job-rich housing project” means a residential development line 19 within an area identified by the Department of Housing and line 20 Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research, line 21 based on indicators such as proximity to jobs, high area median line 22 income relative to the relevant region, and high-quality public line 23 schools, as an area of high opportunity close to jobs. A residential line 24 development shall be deemed to be within an area designated as line 25 job-rich if both of the following apply: line 26 (1)  All parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent line 27 of their area outside of the job-rich area. line 28 (2)  No more than 10 percent of residential units or 100 units, line 29 whichever is less, of the development are outside of the job-rich line 30 area. line 31 (g)  “Local government” means a city, including a charter city, line 32 a county, or a city and county. line 33 (h) “Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail line 34 transit station or a ferry terminal served by either bus or rail transit line 35 service. line 36 (i)  “Residential development” means a project with at least line 37 two-thirds of the square footage of the development designated line 38 for residential use. line 39 (j)  “Sensitive community” means an area identified by the line 40 Department of Housing and Community Development, in

99

SB 50 — 3 —

line 1 consultation with local community-based organizations in each line 2 region, as an area vulnerable to displacement pressures, based on line 3 indicators such as percentage of tenant households living at, or line 4 under, the poverty line relative to the region. line 5 (k)  “Tenant” means a person residing in any of the following: line 6 (1)  Residential real property rented by the person under a line 7 long-term lease. line 8 (2)  A single-room occupancy unit. line 9 (3)  An accessory dwelling unit that is not subject to, or does

line 10 not have a valid permit in accordance with, an ordinance adopted line 11 by a local agency pursuant to Section 65852.22. line 12 (4)  A residential motel. line 13 (5)  Any other type of residential property that is not owned by line 14 the person or a member of the person’s household, for which the line 15 person or a member of the person’s household provides payments line 16 on a regular schedule in exchange for the right to occupy the line 17 residential property. line 18 (l)  “Transit-rich housing project” means a residential line 19 development the parcels of which are all within a one-half mile line 20 radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a stop line 21 on a high-quality bus corridor. A project shall be deemed to be line 22 within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter line 23 mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus corridor if both of the line 24 following apply: line 25 (1)  All parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent line 26 of their area outside of a one-half mile radius of a major transit line 27 stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus line 28 corridor. line 29 (2)  No more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, line 30 whichever is less, of the project are outside of a one-half mile line 31 radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a stop line 32 on a high-quality bus corridor. line 33 65918.51. (a)  A local government shall, upon request of a line 34 development proponent, grant an equitable communities incentive, line 35 as specified in Section 65918.53, when the development proponent line 36 seeks and agrees to construct a residential development that line 37 satisfies the requirements specified in Section 65918.52. line 38 (b)  It is the intent of the Legislature that, absent exceptional line 39 circumstances, actions taken by a local legislative body that

99

— 4 — SB 50

line 1 increase residential density not undermine the equitable line 2 communities incentive program established by this chapter. line 3 65918.52. In order to be eligible for an equitable communities line 4 incentive pursuant to this chapter, a residential development shall line 5 meet all of the following criteria: line 6 (a)  The residential development is either a job-rich housing line 7 project or transit-rich housing project. line 8 (b)  The residential development is located on a site that, at the line 9 time of application, is zoned to allow housing as an underlying

line 10 use in the zone, including, but not limited to, a residential, line 11 mixed-use, or commercial zone, as defined and allowed by the line 12 local government. line 13 (c)  (1)  If the local government has adopted an inclusionary line 14 housing ordinance requiring that the development include a certain line 15 number of units affordable to households with incomes that do not line 16 exceed the limits for moderate-income, lower income, very low line 17 income, or extremely low income specified in Sections 50079.5, line 18 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code, and that line 19 ordinance requires that a new development include levels of line 20 affordable housing in excess of the requirements specified in line 21 paragraph (2), the residential development complies with that line 22 ordinance. line 23 (2)  If the local government has not adopted an inclusionary line 24 housing ordinance, as described in paragraph (1), and the residential line 25 development includes ____ or more residential units, the residential line 26 development includes onsite affordable housing for households line 27 with incomes that do not exceed the limits for extremely low line 28 income, very low income, and low income specified in Sections line 29 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. It is the line 30 intent of the Legislature to require that any development of ____ line 31 or more residential units receiving an equitable communities line 32 incentive pursuant to this chapter include housing affordable to line 33 low, very low or extremely low income households, which, for line 34 projects with low or very low income units, are no less than the line 35 number of onsite units affordable to low or very low income line 36 households that would be required pursuant to subdivision (f) of line 37 Section 65915 for a development receiving a density bonus of 35 line 38 percent. line 39 (d)  The site does not contain, or has not contained, either of the line 40 following:

99

SB 50 — 5 —

line 1 (1)  Housing occupied by tenants within the seven years line 2 preceding the date of the application, including housing that has line 3 been demolished or that tenants have vacated prior to the line 4 application for a development permit. line 5 (2)  A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real line 6 property has exercised his or her rights under Chapter 12.75 line 7 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to line 8 withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years prior line 9 to the date that the development proponent submits an application

line 10 pursuant to this chapter. line 11 (e)  The residential development complies with all applicable line 12 labor, construction employment, and wage standards otherwise line 13 required by law and any other generally applicable requirement line 14 regarding the approval of a development project, including, but line 15 not limited to, the local government’s conditional use or other line 16 discretionary permit approval process, the California line 17 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section line 18 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or a streamlined approval line 19 process that includes labor protections. line 20 (f)  The residential development complies with all other relevant line 21 standards, requirements, and prohibitions imposed by the local line 22 government regarding architectural design, restrictions on or line 23 oversight of demolition, impact fees, and community benefits line 24 agreements. line 25 (g)  The equitable communities incentive shall not be used to line 26 undermine the economic feasibility of delivering low-income line 27 housing under the state density bonus program or a local line 28 implementation of the state density bonus program, or any locally line 29 adopted program that puts conditions on new development line 30 applications on the basis of receiving a zone change or general line 31 plan amendment in exchange for benefits such as increased line 32 affordable housing, local hire, or payment of prevailing wages. line 33 65918.53. (a)  A residential development that meets the criteria line 34 specified in Section 65918.52 shall receive, upon request, an line 35 equitable communities incentive as follows: line 36 (1)  Any eligible applicant shall receive the following: line 37 (A)  A waiver from maximum controls on density. line 38 (B)  A waiver from maximum automobile parking requirements line 39 greater than 0.5 automobile parking spots per unit.

99

— 6 — SB 50

line 1 (C)  Up to three incentives and concessions pursuant to line 2 subdivision (d) of Section 65915. line 3 (2)  An eligible applicant proposing a residential development line 4 that is located within a one-half mile radius, but outside a line 5 one-quarter mile radius, of a major transit stop and includes no line 6 less than ____ percent affordable housing units shall receive, in line 7 addition to the incentives specified in paragraph (1), waivers from line 8 all of the following: line 9 (A)  Maximum height requirements less than 45 feet.

line 10 (B)  Maximum FAR requirements less than 2.5. line 11 (C)  Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), any line 12 maximum automobile parking requirement. line 13 (3)  An eligible applicant proposing a residential development line 14 that is located within a one-quarter mile radius of a major transit line 15 and includes no less than ____ percent affordable housing units line 16 shall receive, in addition to the incentives specified in paragraph line 17 (1), waivers from all of the following: line 18 (A)  Maximum height requirements less than 55 feet. line 19 (B)  Maximum FAR requirements less than 3.25. line 20 (C)  Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), any line 21 maximum automobile parking requirement. line 22 (4)  Notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of calculating line 23 any additional incentive or concession in accordance with Section line 24 65915, the number of units in the residential development after line 25 applying the equitable communities incentive received pursuant line 26 to this chapter shall be used as the base density for calculating the line 27 incentive or concession under that section. line 28 (5)  An eligible applicant proposing a project that meets all of line 29 the requirements under Section 65913.4 may submit an application line 30 for streamlined, ministerial approval in accordance with that line 31 section. line 32 (b)  The local government may modify or expand the terms of line 33 an equitable communities incentive provided pursuant to this line 34 chapter, provided that the equitable communities incentive is line 35 consistent with, and meets the minimum standards specified in, line 36 this chapter. line 37 65918.54. The Legislature finds and declares that this chapter line 38 addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal line 39 affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the

99

SB 50 — 7 —

line 1 California Constitution. Therefore, this chapter applies to all cities, line 2 including charter cities. line 3 65918.55. (a)  It is the intent of the Legislature that line 4 implementation of this chapter be delayed in sensitive communities line 5 until July 1, 2020. line 6 (b)  It is further the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation line 7 that does all of the following: line 8 (1)  Between January 1, 2020, and ____, allows a local line 9 government, in lieu of the requirements of this chapter, to opt for

line 10 a community-led planning process aimed toward increasing line 11 residential density and multifamily housing choices near transit line 12 stops. line 13 (2)  Encourages sensitive communities to opt for a line 14 community-led planning process at the neighborhood level to line 15 develop zoning and other policies that encourage multifamily line 16 housing development at a range of income levels to meet unmet line 17 needs, protect vulnerable residents from displacement, and address line 18 other locally identified priorities. line 19 (3)  Sets minimum performance standards for community plans, line 20 such as minimum overall residential development capacity and line 21 the minimum affordability standards set forth in this chapter. line 22 (4)  Automatically applies the provisions of this chapter on line 23 January 1, 2025, to sensitive communities that do not have adopted line 24 community plans that meet the minimum standards described in line 25 paragraph (3), whether those plans were adopted prior to or after line 26 enactment of this chapter. line 27 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 28 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 29 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 30 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 31 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 32 17556 of the Government Code.

O

99

— 8 — SB 50

CASA COMPACT A 15-Year Emergency Policy Package to Confront the Housing Crisis in the San Francisco Bay Area

January 2019

The Committee to House the Bay Area

Table of Contents CASA Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Tenant Protections

Compact Element #1: Just Cause Eviction Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Compact Element #2: Rent Cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Compact Element #3: Rent Assistance and Access to Legal Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Housing Inclusion and Capacity

Compact Element #4: Remove Regulatory Barriers to Accessory Dwelling Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Compact Element #5: Minimum Zoning near Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Compact Element #6: Good Government Reforms to Housing Approval Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Approval Process and Timeline

Compact Element #7: Expedited Approvals and Financial Incentives for Select Housing . . . . . . . . . .14

Compact Element #8: Unlock Public Land for Affordable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Funding and Coordination

Compact Element #9: Funding and Financing the CASA Compact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Compact Element #10: Regional Housing Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Calls for Action

Call for Action: Redevelopment 2 .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Call for Action: Lower the Voter Threshold for Housing Funding Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Call for Action: Fiscalization of Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Call for Action: Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Call for Action: Grow and Stabilize the Construction Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Local Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

i | CASA Compact

The Bay Area faces many pressing regional problems — traffic congestion, air pollution, the threat of earthquakes and other natural disasters, to name a few. But the housing shortage has reached crisis proportions . During our remarkable run of economic expansion since the Great Recession ended in 2010, the Bay Area has added 722,000 jobs but constructed only 106,000 housing units . With housing supply and demand that far out of whack, prices have shot through the roof and long-time residents as well as newcomers are suffering the consequences .

In one of the wealthiest metropolitan areas on the planet, tens of thousands of our fellow citizens are ill-housed or not even housed at all . Many more families are just one missed paycheck away from eviction . While the recent wildfires have underscored the devastating effects of suddenly losing a home, the reality is that too many Bay Area residents face that situation every day .

Our housing crisis is also a transportation crisis . Nearly 190,000 workers commute from outside the nine-county Bay Area to the business parks of Silicon Valley and the Tri-Valley, and more than 220,000 East Bay residents cross the toll bridges to the Peninsula every day . Driven by the search for reasonably-priced housing, these “super-commuters” are clogging the roads and transit systems that we all rely on .

The Bay Area faces a housing crisis because we have failed at three tasks: (1) we have failed to produce enough housing for residents at all income levels; (2) we have failed to preserve the affordable housing that already exists; and (3) we have failed to protect current residents from displacement where neighborhoods are changing rapidly .

These 3 P’s — Production, Preservation, and Protection — are not only the signposts of our collective failure, but they should be the focus of our future efforts to overcome the crisis we have created .

What is CASA? Of course, it is the Spanish word for “house .” It is also the name of a blue-ribbon task force of elected and civic leaders convened by the Association

of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) . Its three Co-Chairs are Fred Blackwell of the San Francisco Foundation, Leslye Corsiglia of Silicon Valley @ Home and Michael Covarrubias of TMG Partners . The CASA Compact is a 15-year emergency policy package to confront the region’s housing crisis head-on . It includes a series of policy reforms that will allow the Bay Area to build more housing at all income levels while protecting tenants and low-income communities from unjust evictions and displacement .

The Compact also includes a series of revenue recommendations needed to preserve our existing housing stock,

subsidize the construction of more affordable housing, and provide assistance to tenants facing eviction .

Finally, the CASA coalition proposes to create a new Regional Housing Enterprise to provide technical assistance to local governments, collect data to monitor our progress, and administer any new regional funds that might be approved . The new enterprise will not have direct land use authority . These three R’s — Reform,

Revenue, and Regionalism — form the crux of the CASA Compact .

Animating our work has been a deep concern about how we grow housing in a more inclusive manner in all neighborhoods and not accelerate displacement in the most vulnerable communities . The Bay Area’s segregated housing patterns — both by race and by income — are a legacy of decades of discriminatory government policies and private sector lending practices . The CASA Compact contains specific protections for neighborhoods and residents most affected by that horrible history . And while the Compact was not designed to deal directly with all aspects of the region’s chronic homelessness problem, many of its elements should

result in more and better options to shelter this particularly vulnerable segment of the Bay Area’s population .

When Bay Area residents are polled about who is

CASA Preamble

“The Bay Area is in a state of great peril today; CASA is the best

chance to fix this crisis.”

FRED BLACKWELL

“Our goal is to reach consensus on big picture

responses that will move the needle on housing

affordability in this region.”

LESLYE CORSIGLIA

January 2019 | ii

responsible for the region’s housing crisis, they spread the blame far and wide: it’s the businesses who create all the jobs, it’s the developers who build the luxury housing, it’s local government officials who oppose new housing developments, it’s environmental and labor interests whose demands make new housing more expensive, it’s community groups who fear the changes that new development will bring .

All those interests (and more) came together around the CASA table for the past 18 months . They worked in the spirit of finding common ground, working through entrenched differences and charting a course forward for the good of the region . The resulting Compact represents an interlocking series of agreements among the negotiating parties . Each signatory to the Compact pledges to support the entire agreement and all of its provisions .

The signatories to the CASA Compact further pledge that their work will not stop when they put down their ceremonial pens . The real work will have just begun .

Implementation of the CASA Compact will require bills to be passed in Sacramento, it will require leadership from our new governor Gavin Newsom, it will require regional ballot measure campaigns in 2020 and the years beyond, it will require changes in transportation and housing policy-making at both ABAG and MTC, and it will require every local government in the Bay Area to do their part .

It is a commonplace to say problems that have been decades in the making can’t be solved overnight . But we can’t afford to take our time in confronting the Bay Area’s housing crisis . We need to make significant progress in the next 3–5 years .

The CASA Compact is detailed, comprehensive, and actionable . Yet, the region’s housing challenge really boils down to a simple, quite personal question: shouldn’t our region be able to grow and prosper while also ensuring that our kids and grandkids can live as adults in the neighborhoods where they grew up?

We say the answer is yes.

CASA is about what kind of place our kids and grandkids will live in.

“We must compromise, break down silos, and set aside

differences for the greater good of the Bay Area.”

MICHAEL COVARRUBIAS

iii | CASA Compact

Supportive State

Legislation and Funding

Outcomes

Principles

Goal

House theBay Area

No Net Loss ofDeed-Restricted

Affordable Housing

ContinuedJob Growth and

EconomicCompetitiveness

More Homeownership

Opportunities

More Funding and Land for

Deed-RestrictedAffordable

Housing

Pipeline ofWorkers to Fill Professional

and ConstructionJobs

Jobs-Housing Balance and FitBy Sub-Region

Produce

+/-

Preserve

+/-

Protect

+/-

Numeric Targets

Legislation/Reform

Technical Assistance

Funding/Financing

Incentives/Conditions

Outreach/Education

35,000 Housing Units / Year14,000 of Which are Affordable to

Lower-Income and 7,000 to Moderate-Income Households

Timeframe

Near-Term

Medium-Term

Long-Term

Early Wins

Low-Hanging Fruit

Big Ideas

300,000 Lower-Income HHsWho are Extremely Rent-Burdened (they spend more than 50 percent

of their income on housing)

Level of Effort

30,000 Affordable Units26,000 of Which are Market-Rate

Affordable Units, and 4,000 are At-Risk Over the Next 5 Years

Geography

Within/Outside PDAs

High-Opportunity Areas

Disadvantaged Areas

Typology ofActions

“Lenses”

Greater Mixof Housing in

High-ResourceNeighborhoods

CASA Compact Framework

Racial and

More HousingIn Proximity to

Transit

Economic Equity

Higher Productivity in

the Construction Sector Through

Innovation

Updated June 25, 2018

CASA Action

Neighborhood Stabilization in

Low-IncomeCommunities

Figure A: The CASA Framework

January 2019 | 1

Introduction The recommendations in this Compact are the result of an intensive dialogue among the key interests who are collectively responsible for housing the Bay Area . Over the course of 18 months, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) convened a series of structured discussions with local government officials, developers, major employers, labor interests, housing and policy experts, social equity advocates and non-profit housing providers . The goal was straightforward but by no means simple: find common ground on a comprehensive set of solutions to the Bay Area’s housing crisis .

CASA was led by three Co-Chairs (Fred Blackwell, Leslye Corsiglia and Michael Covarrubias), and Steve Heminger, Executive Director of MTC/ABAG . It was structured around a Technical Committee of policy experts and practitioners and a Steering Committee of elected officials, thought leaders and major employers . The Technical Committee’s role was to recommend actions for addressing the crisis . Those recommendations went to the Steering Committee for review, refinement and final approval . The CASA effort was supported and staffed by MTC/ABAG and a team of consultants . Profiles of the Co-Chairs and rosters for both the Steering and Technical Committees are included as appendices to this document .

Phase One: Foundational Work (June 2017-Jan 2018) The first phase of the CASA process was focused on learning, sharing perspectives, and developing a framework for the process of developing the CASA Compact . Experts from UC Berkeley provided in-depth analysis of the many causes and consequences of the crisis, ensuring that all members of the Committees were operating from a shared base of knowledge . On the basis of this shared understanding, the Co-Chairs and Committee forged a detailed framework (shown as Figure A) to shape the CASA process and the ultimate Compact . The framework is organized around three principal outcomes, or ‘Three Ps’ as they became known in CASA parlance:

1 Increasing housing production at all levels of affordability,

2 Preserving existing affordable housing, and

3 Protecting vulnerable households from housing instability and displacement .

Phase Two: Brainstorming Action Ideas (Jan-July 2018) Next, the Committees spent six months brainstorming and vetting upwards of 30 action ideas . This process was driven by workgroups who dedicated hundreds of hours to meeting, researching and drafting ideas .

Community-based organizations and members of the public also participated in generating ideas . A series of listening sessions around the region solicited input from vulnerable households in identifying priority actions that CASA should consider . Members of the public also shared ideas and feedback through public comment . Each idea was written up and presented to the Technical Committee for vetting . The Committee members used a “gradients of agreement” tool to score each idea on a scale of 1-5 . The Steering Committee reviewed and refined the most promising ideas that emerged from the Technical Committee .

Phase 3: Crafting the Compact (Sept-Dec 2018) In the final phase, the Co-Chairs distilled the 30+ action plans into the Compact you see before you . This happened through an iterative process, with successive versions of the Compact presented to both the Technical and Steering Committees and refined based on their input .

Phase 4: CASA Implementation CASA leadership and key members will continue to work in cross-sector coordination with State and local elected officials and agencies to implement the principles of the CASA Compact .

Core Principles Over the course of this process, the participants forged an understanding around core principles that underpin the recommendations in this document . These include:

1 Shared responsibility All sectors and interests should share the burdens and benefits of housing the Bay Area .

2 Inclusion everywhere Find ways to include more housing at all income levels, in every jurisdiction .

3 Promote ‘Missing Middle’ housing types Encourage the development of smaller homes that are more affordable by design and less likely to cause displacement .

4 Stabilize communities Preserve the historic diversity and access to opportunity in the Bay Area .

5 Balance across the Three Ps Individual components of the Compact should move forward together and avoid undermining each other .

6 Level the playing field The Compact should create fair, more uniform standards for the housing development process, across the Bay Area .

7 Minimize administrative burden We should minimize new administrative requirements and focus on strategies that can be implemented rapidly and efficiently .

2 | CASA Compact

Compact Element #1 — Just Cause Eviction Policy Brief Summary Ensure that all Bay Area tenants are protected from arbitrary evictions by adopting a region-wide policy requiring landlords to cite specific “just causes” (both fault and no-fault) for termination of tenancy, such as failure to pay rent or violation of lease terms . Require landlords to provide relocation assistance for covered no-fault evictions .

Desired Effect Just cause protects tenants from arbitrary evictions . Studies show that eviction can cause health issues, emotional trauma, school disruption for children, longer and costly commutes, and reduced wage earnings for adults . Just cause eviction protections promote tenant stability and limit eviction-related health consequences .

References and Models Action Plan 2 .1; NJ state Just Cause Law; Large cities in CA (SF, Oakland, San Jose, LA)

DETAILED PROPOSAL Permissible causes for eviction Both fault and no-fault evictions should be allowable under a region-wide just cause policy . Fault eviction causes should include failure to pay rent, substantial breach of a material term of the rental agreement, nuisance, waste, or illegal conduct . No-fault causes should include owner move-in, withdrawal of unit from rental market (Ellis Act/condo conversions), unit unsafe for habitation, or demolition/substantial rehabilitation

Coverage Just cause eviction standards should apply to all rental units except the following:

• Government owned and government subsidized housing units or housing with existing government regulatory assessments that govern rent increases in subsidized rental units (e .g ., Section 8)

• Transient and tourist hotel occupancy as defined in Civil Code Section 1940(b)

• Housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, or extended care facility

• Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a K-12 school

• Tenant shares bathroom/kitchen with the owner who maintains principal residence there

• Single owner-occupied residences including when the owner-occupant rents or leases 2 units (including ADU and JADU) or bedrooms

• Resident-owned nonprofit housing

Waiting Period The protections should apply only after a tenant has been in occupancy (with or without a lease) for at least 12 months . All existing tenancies should be subject to these protections, effective immediately upon the policy being signed into law .

Notice Requirements Owners should be required to provide notice to tenants at the beginning of each tenancy as to tenant rights with copy of lease . This notice should be in the form of a lease addendum that is signed by the tenant at the time the lease is signed . The grounds for eviction should be set forth in the notice to terminate tenancy .

If the reason for the termination is a curable lease violation, the owner should be required to provide an initial notice with an opportunity to cure before the notice of termination . If the lease violation is related to specific illegal activity that presents the potential for harm to other tenants, there should not be a right to cure . Separate provisions should be made for domestic violence situations .

Relocation Assistance Relocation assistance should be provided in all covered no-fault causes where tenants have been in occupancy for at least 12 months, except in cases where the owner is moving into the unit . At time of service of notice to quit, the landlord should notify the tenants of their right to relocation assistance and provide payment directly to the tenant . The amount of relocation assistance should be tiered based on number of bedrooms (see San Jose example) . Relocation assistance should be available to all qualifying tenants regardless of income .

Preemption of Local Ordinances This law should not preempt more restrictive local ordinances .

January 2019 | 3

Figure 1: Low-Income Renters in 2016 and Sensitive Communities

4 | CASA Compact

Compact Element #2 — Rent Cap Brief Summary Establish a Bay Area-wide rent cap that limits annual increases in rent to a reasonable amount .

Desired Effect A rent cap would prevent extreme increases in rent on a year-to-year basis, thereby decreasing the number of households who are at risk of displacement and homelessness, decreasing the number of households who are rent burdened, and promoting tenant and community stability . Extreme rent increases can pose a particular burden for tenants who are low and fixed income . The rent cap can be extended after the emergency period . Figure 2 maps the many Bay Area communities at risk of displacement .

References and Models Action Plans 1 .1, 1 .2, 1 .3; Existing State Anti-Gouging Law in States of Emergency

DETAILED PROPOSAL Cap on Annual Rent Increase For an emergency period (15 years), no landlord should increase rent by more than CPI+5% in any year of tenancy . The notice of allowable rent increase should be provided annually .

Vacancy Provision The cap on rent increase should apply to the renter, not the unit .

Coverage The following unit types should be exempt from the cap:

• Affordable housing properties governed by regulatory agreements;

• ADUs on owner-occupied properties;

• Dormitories .

Pass-Throughs, Banking and Capital Improvements If rent has declined or if landlord has not increased rents for several consecutive years, landlords should be able to bank those unused rent increases for 3-5 years . When drawing upon banked rent increases, landlords should not be allowed to increase rents more than 10-15% annually .

A landlord should be able to pass through actual operating expense increases including water and sewer, wastewater, trash, electric and gas using industry standards such as the RUBS system (Ratio Utility Billing System) . The costs of capital improvements inclusive of a 4% return on investment that are necessary to maintain the building(s) with reasonable upgrades and maintenance items to address health and safety, shall be allowed to be passed through to tenants on an amortized basis, per IRS standards .

Preemption of Local Ordinances This law should not preempt more restrictive local ordinances .

State of Emergency Rent cap shall be evaluated before any extension is granted to study impact of rent cap on housing market overall .

Administration This Compact Element will likely require some type of oversight function .

January 2019 | 5

Figure 2: Map of Displacement Risk

6 | CASA Compact

Compact Element #3 — Rent Assistance and Access to Legal Counsel Brief Summary For low-income tenants facing eviction, provide access to free legal counsel and emergency rent assistance .

Desired Effect Access to a lawyer can be the difference between losing a home and keeping it . Ensuring that all tenants facing eviction have access to legal counsel would create a fairer justice system; prevent evictions and homelessness; improve health, stability, and opportunity for thousands of residents including children; and preserve existing affordable housing .

Non-payment of rent is the leading cause of evictions in the Bay Area . Figure 3 shows rent increase trends in the Bay Area . An emergency rent assistance program would assist in cases where tenants have an urgent, temporary financial gap . It would help tenants stay in their homes, preventing evictions, periods of marginal housing, and homelessness for households at risk of eviction due to financial instability .

There is a recognition of the importance of keeping people housed, and a significant portion of funding identified to help with housing instability will likely be earmarked to emergency rental assistance .

This Compact Element is not intended to supersede any local government programs that might be more expansive than what is contemplated herein .

References and Models Action Plans 3 .1 and 4 .1; SF Prop F (June 2018); New York City; Santa Clara County Emergency Assistance Network

DETAILED PROPOSAL Legal Representation All tenants who are faced with legal proceedings to evict them from their residence should have access to legal counsel, except when eviction proceedings are brought by a landlord or master tenant who resides in the same dwelling unit or property with tenant . The term “legal representation” should mean full scope representation provided to an individual by a designated organization or attorney which includes, but is not limited to, filing responsive pleadings, appearing on behalf of the tenant in court proceedings, and providing legal advice .

Emergency Rent Assistance Low-income tenants facing eviction and homelessness due to non-payment of rent should be eligible to receive emergency rent assistance . This assistance should be targeted to tenants who have an urgent, temporary financial gap and are at high risk for becoming homeless if evicted . The Regional Housing Enterprise (see Compact Element #10) should establish guidelines and policies for administering the program, including how to determine eligibility . The regional agency should identify, fund and oversee local service providers (public or non-profit) to carry out the program .

Cap on Assistance The amount of total assistance should be capped at $5,000 - $10,000 per tenancy .

Landlord Obligation Landlord obligation should be limited to providing an addendum notice of this access in the lease and eviction notice . Landlord should have no payment or any other obligations . If a tenant fails to seek legal counsel, it will not impede eviction proceedings for the landlord .

Means Testing Emergency rental assistance should be limited to those whose incomes do not exceed 80% of AMI . Legal services should be provided to all qualifying tenants regardless of income .

Funding Generate significant funds through Compact Element #9 to fund regional access to legal counsel and emergency rent assistance . Pro-bono counsel for tenants shall be encouraged .

January 2019 | 7

Figure 3: Map of Rent Increases, 2010-2016

8 | CASA Compact

Compact Element #4 — Remove Regulatory Barriers to ADUs Brief Summary Extend current Bay Area best practices regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to every jurisdiction in the region . Amend existing state ADU law to remove regulatory barriers including ministerial approval for ADUs and Junior ADUs in residential zones, allowance for multiple ADUs in multi-family homes, and creation of a small homes building code (AB 2890 Ting) .

Desired Effect Existing single-family homes make up a significant portion of the region’s land base . Local best practices in the region today allow both an ADU and Junior ADU on single family lots and multiple ADUs in existing multi-family buildings with ministerial approval . See Figure 4 for a prototypical ADU . Expanding these best practices regionwide would allow for a rapid increase in more affordable homes, and would help stabilize cost-burdened homeowners by creating a new source of income . If 20% of the region’s 1 .5 million single-family homeowners choose to build an ADU, this policy could create 300,000 new homes distributed throughout existing neighborhoods . This includes about 50,000 new units in Priority Development Areas alone .

References and Models Action Plans 10 .3, 10 .4; UCB Chapple 2014; UCB Terner Center 2017; Legislative history SB 1069, AB 2890; Arlington VA, Portland OR, Seattle WA, Vancouver BC, State of Oregon Tiny Homes Code .

DETAILED PROPOSAL Local Standards for ADUs (see AB 2890 Ting) New state law should require local jurisdictions in the Bay Area to encourage the creation of ADUs as follows:

• Require ministerial approval for both an ADU and a Junior ADU (JADU) in all residential zones including in rear yards or by division of existing homes into two units;

• ADUs receiving ministerial permits should not be used for short-term rentals;

• Encourage forgiveness of code violations (except health and safety) in grandfathered ADUs;

• Apply the Housing Accountability Act’s provisions for determining project consistency .

Sprinklers should be required for ADUs if required under the building code for comparable home construction . Use of unlicensed contractors under “owner builder” permits shall be discouraged by requiring that a statement of owner liability be provided when the building permit is issued .

Impact Fees Require impact fees for ADUs and tiny homes to be charged (1) on a per-square-foot basis and (2) only on net new living area over 500 sq . ft . per accessory unit .

Small and Tiny Homes Building Code State law should create a building code for small homes and wheeled homes to reduce non-safety code requirements that disproportionately make small homes and tiny homes infeasible including energy standards, appliance and room sizes, and similar requirements . Life-safety standards must be upheld .

Owner Occupancy Local jurisdictions should be encouraged to adopt owner occupancy requirements for properties containing ADUs . If owner occupancy is required, reasonable annual monitoring programs that rely on existing published documents should be established .

January 2019 | 9

Figure 4: Prototypes for Accessory Dwelling Units

10 | CASA Compact

Compact Element #5 — Minimum Zoning near Transit Brief Summary This element includes three components . In neighborhoods served by high quality bus service, establish minimum zoning on all residential, commercial, and institutional zones to allow ‘missing middle’ housing types up to 36’ tall . In neighborhoods surrounding the region’s major transit stops (rail stations and ferry terminals), establish minimum zoning to allow midrise residential housing up to 55’ tall (75’ tall with a density bonus) . Allow sensitive communities to defer rezoning above 36’ while they develop context-sensitive plans . On large commercial-zoned parcels located near job centers, make housing an allowable use . For projects with 20 units or more, require inclusion of affordable units .

Desired Effect This policy would create an inclusive mix of homes near transit and jobs, consistent with the goals of Plan Bay Area . It would spur the development of ‘missing middle’ housing types that are within reach of working families and blend into existing neighborhoods . This type of housing is common in pre-war neighborhoods of the East Bay and Peninsula but has largely been zoned out of existence in recent decades .

References and Model Policies SB 827 (Wiener, 2017) . CASA Action Plans 8 .2, 10 .3, 10 .5, 10 .6

DETAILED PROPOSAL Minimum Zoning Near Transit The state should establish minimum zoning for housing in neighborhoods served by existing high-quality transit as follows:

• High quality bus service Residential uses up to 36’ tall with development standards (such as lot coverage, setbacks, density limits, and maximum unit size) should be allowed within 1 ⁄2 mile of bus stops with at least 15-minute headways at peak periods and 30-minute headways on weekends (as defined in SB 827) .

• Major transit stop Residential uses up to 55’ tall (75’ tall with density bonus) that have development standards similar to those above (such as lot coverage, setbacks, density limits, and maximum unit size) should be allowed within 1/4 -mile radius of major transit stops (rail stations and ferry terminals) .

Development standards such as setbacks, unit sizes and lot coverage requirements should apply . Neither development standards nor other zoning and design controls should mandate densities lower than those prescribed above . These shall not be used to reduce density where higher local standards or plans apply .

Housing Overlay on Large Low-Density Commercial Sites The state should establish minimum zoning for housing on low-density commercial sites above a certain acreage that are located within the transit areas defined above .

Tenant Protections and Preservation All sites rezoned under this policy should be subject to tenant protections, demolition controls and no net loss provisions . Sites occupied by a mobile home park, public housing, or Single Room Occupancy (SRO) built prior to the effective date of the enabling legislation should not be eligible for rezoning .

Affordable Housing Requirements Onsite affordable housing should be required at levels not less than state density bonus law . Projects with 10-20 units should have the option to pay an in-lieu fee . This in-lieu fee should be deferred or waived for units that are sold or rented at or below missing middle income levels . This fee should be imposed at the time of sale . Funds generated by this fee should be deposited into a local or regional housing fund .

Sensitive Communities If a major transit stop is located in or adjacent to a sensitive community, up-zoning above 36’ should be automatically deferred for a period of up to 5 years while the jurisdiction develops a context-sensitive plan for that community . If the community so chooses, it may opt into up-zoning to 55’ without a deferral period or community plan . The decision to opt in should be made by the local legislative body (city council or board of supervisors) and must involve consultation with residents of the sensitive community and at least one public hearing . Sensitive community areas represent the intersection of disadvantaged and vulnerable communities as defined by the following Bay Area regional agencies: MTC and the SF Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) . See Figure 5 for the map of these Transit Access and Sensitive Community Areas .

Labor Standards The residential development shall comply with all applicable labor, construction, employment, and wage standards otherwise required by law and any other generally applicable requirement regarding the approval of a development project, including, but not limited to, the local government’s conditional use or other discretionary permit approval process, the California Environmental Quality Act, or a streamlined approval process that includes labor protections .

January 2019 | 11

Figure 5: Map of Transit Access and Sensitive Community Areas

12 | CASA Compact

Compact Element #6 — Good Government Reforms to Housing Approval ProcessBrief Summary Establish ‘good government’ standards for the entitlement and permitting of zoning-compliant residential projects . Require transparency and consistency in how residential impact fees are set and enforced . Figure 6 shows how complicated the approval process for housing can be in California .

Desired Effect Research by the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation demonstrates that local government impact fees and inclusionary requirements, when combined with regulatory uncertainty and record-high construction costs, have made it economically infeasible to build a standard mid-rise housing project in many parts of the Bay Area . The American Planning Association recommends that local governments should restore direct reliance on adopted plans and create transparency, predictability, reliability and timeliness to the housing approvals process .

References and Model Policies CASA Action Plan 12 .1; Terner Center Report on Fee Costs; Berkeley Law Land Use Study; Roseville fee transparency

DETAILED PROPOSAL Standards for Processing Zoning-Compliant Residential Applications with Fewer than 500 Units Local jurisdictions should be required to process zoning-compliant residential development applications in accordance with the following standards:

• Each jurisdiction should create and maintain an up-to-date listing of all rules, codes and standards that apply to residential development applications . This information should be made available online and in print .

• Rules, fees and historic status should be locked at the date of application completeness which shall be defined as providing only the elements on the agency’s written application material .

• The jurisdiction should require no more than three de novo public hearings on a zoning-compliant residential application .

• Building permits should expire if not used in 24 months, with flexibility to adapt to changing economic conditions and other extenuating circumstances .

• Jurisdictions should apply the Housing Accountability Act’s standards for project consistency and remedies .

Standards for Impact Fees State law should create a set of uniform standards and requirements for Bay Area jurisdictions to follow when imposing impact fees on new residential development, as recommended by the UC Berkeley Terner Center:

• Every jurisdiction should conduct a comprehensive review and assessment of their fees to better understand the aggregate costs imposed .

• When determining the amount of fees to charge to new residential projects, jurisdictions should adhere to a standardized methodology and set of objective standards, rather than the current “reasonableness” test which is overly broad .

• Every jurisdiction should create and maintain an up-to-date fee schedule in a publicly accessible format .

• Adopt fee deferral programs which allow builders to pay some fees later in the development process .

Standards for Inclusionary Zoning State law should establish that programs which require inclusion, such as density bonus, local inclusionary requirements, housing impact fees and in-lieu fees, should not be additive . Require that in-lieu fees should be an option for fulfilling inclusionary requirements imposed without the density bonus . Existing local policies should be grandfathered in .

Standards for Downzoning and Moratoria The State should create standards that govern the circumstances in which local governments downzone or impose building moratoria in existing or planned residential neighborhoods in urbanized areas . Such actions run counter to state housing law and should only be undertaken to address an immediate crisis, such as a health and safety hazard or protection of low-income families at risk of displacement .

Report Impositions That May Suppress Housing above the Hard Cost of Housing Construction Jurisdictions should annually document all local agency impositions that increase the hard cost (excluding labor and materials) of housing construction, including fees and inclusionary zoning requirements . This information should be included in the jurisdiction’s annual Housing Element report .

January 2019 | 13

How does housing get approved? Midrise Project

Source: the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley, 2018

Figure 6: Typical Local Housing Approval Processes and Timeframes

Larger project (35-50 units), public review and appeals process

(discretionary)

Checked for conformity & CEQA

Staff work required (i.e. analysis, staff reports, etc.) – CEQA documents prepared

Hearing Officer or Planning Commission Determination

Approved, then appealed

Project Approved!

Plans submitted (including pre-submittal meeting)

Public notification, public hearing

Appeals to Planning

Commission

14 | CASA Compact

Compact Element #7 — Expedited Approvals and Financial Incentives for Select Housing Brief Summary Ensure timely approval of zoning-compliant housing projects and create financial incentives for enabling on-site affordability and prevailing wages . This streamlining policy will provide another option for projects that may not benefit from SB 35 . This policy does not amend or replace SB 35 . Allow Sensitive Communities to defer implementation while they develop a context-sensitive plan .

Desired Effect This policy would make it possible to build more housing projects while addressing the critical shortage of housing labor, curbing unsafe labor practices, and providing on-site affordability for missing-middle income ranges that are not eligible for other sources of subsidy . By harnessing future tax increment from the proposed housing development itself, local jurisdictions can get more affordable units built with less public subsidy . All taxing agencies will benefit from the multiplier effect of new construction beyond the project site . By providing expedited approvals, these projects will be approved and built more quickly . The intent of this element is that it does not overrule local inclusionary zoning .

Models and References SB 35 (Wiener,2017); New York tax abatement; Action Plans Referenced 12 .2, 12 .3, 17 .1, 17 .2

DETAILED PROPOSAL Streamlined Review Process state law should create a new, expedited review process for residential projects that meet thresholds outlined below . These projects should be granted a statutory CEQA exemption and should be subject to a limited discretionary review process . Projects should be approved within one year and should be subject to no more than three de novo public hearings .

Qualifying Projects To qualify for streamlined review, projects should meet all of the following criteria:

• Complies with existing zoning standards;

• Located in an existing urbanized area;

• Eligible sites as defined in SB 35;

• Restricts at least twenty percent (20%) of onsite housing units to middle-income households through recorded long-term deed restrictions (that may range from 80% to 150% of AMI depending on localized rents and market conditions) with an average affordability not to exceed 110% AMI;

• Provides prevailing wages and safe working conditions for all workers;

• Utilizes apprentice labor to grow the construction workforce;

• Complies with all proposed labor standards contained in SB 35 and shall include prevailing wages and trained apprentices to help grow the construction workforce .

Financial Incentives to Offset Costs Qualifying projects should receive financial incentives to offset the costs associated with providing income-restricted housing units and higher wages . Incentives could include some combination of the following:

• Fifteen years of property tax increment abatement, modeled on the New York City program . Abatement should be structured so that units rented or sold at missing middle prices (i .e ., 150% AMI or less) receive full abatement, and units rented or sold above this shall receive a lesser abatement (i .e ., 50% -75% abatement)

• Cap impact fees at a reasonable level that allows project feasibility targeted to regional median

• Density bonus of 35%

• Parking reduced to 50% of local requirement (at the discretion of the developer)

• Relief from strict liability standards for ownership housing

Sensitive Communities Implementation of this policy in sensitive communities should be automatically deferred for a period of up to 5 years where the local jurisdiction should develop a context-sensitive plan for that community . If a Sensitive Community so chooses, it may opt to implement this policy effective immediately . The decision to opt in should be made by the local legislative body (city council or board of supervisors) and must involve consultation with residents of the sensitive community, and at least one public hearing . Sensitive community areas represent the intersection of disadvantaged and vulnerable communities as defined by the following Bay Area regional agencies: MTC, SF Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District . See Figure 5 for the map of these Transit Access and Sensitive Community Areas .

January 2019 | 15

Figure 7: Regional Housing Production is Worst for the “Missing Middle”

Missing Middle

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,0002010–2015 Job Growth

2007–2014 Housing Production

2007–2014 Housing Need (RHNA)

High-IncomeModerate-IncomeLow-Income

161,690

95,030

216,250

83,492

41,316

11,732

89,242 87,933

23,433

Affordable Housing Permits are Lower Than Identified Need

16 | CASA Compact

Compact Element #8 — Unlock Public Land for Affordable Housing Brief Summary Promote increased utilization of public land (surplus and underutilized) for affordable housing through a variety of legislative and regulatory changes, as well as the creation of new regional coordination and planning functions .

Desired Effect Encourage the reuse of public land for creation of mixed-income/affordable housing by reducing barriers to development on public land . See Figure 8 for the largest public agency landowners near public transit .

References and Models Action Plans 16 .1; 16 .2; Puget Sound region including Seattle; Enterprise; MTC/ABAG Study .

DETAILED PROPOSAL Support reforms introduced in AB 2065 (Ting, 2017)

• Respond to the issue of charter cities and the requirement that all cities comply with State surplus lands law

• Create clear definition of “surplus” and “underutilized .”

• Require cities, counties, State agencies, and all public agencies to create a full inventory of their publicly-owned sites and report them to HCD .

• Direct HCD to develop a statewide public lands database that will include all publicly-owned sites in the State of California, starting with a pilot in the Bay Area . The database will also include information on present uses . HCD would enforce a revised State Surplus Land Act with referral power to the Attorney General’s Office for infractions .

Amend State Housing Element Law to:

• Allow residential uses on all developable public land, regardless of zoning, by establishing a presumption in Housing Element Law that homes may be built on public land meeting certain criteria (e .g ., not parkland) .

• Require that Housing Elements include a discussion of the jurisdiction’s policies and plans to encourage the development of affordable housing on these sites .

• Require jurisdictions to report annually through housing element progress reports how they disposed of public and surplus sites .

• State and regional agencies should give preference in screening and scoring projects for discretionary funds to public agency project sponsors that dispose of surplus lands for affordable housing .

Regulatory and Process Changes

• Require State agencies to comply with the State Surplus Land Act and make surplus and underutilized property available for affordable housing, including deploying 10% of underutilized/surplus property for affordable housing on an annual basis .

• Amend State law time frames for surplus land disposition to expedite the process to no more than 24 months .

• Competitive funding programs for affordable housing, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC) programs, should reward additional points to projects that propose affordable development on public land .

• The State of California should review its spatial guidelines for public facilities (i .e ., schools) to evaluate potential for changes that could open up land for housing without compromising the quality of on-site public services .

Labor Standards Public lands released for housing should include policies that help expand the trained labor pool available for housing construction including requirements for trained apprentices and prevailing wages . Exceptions to these requirements should be made for temporary housing built to address an emergency, and for housing built with volunteer labor (see Labor Code § 1720 .4) . Temporary housing shall be defined as follows:

• Designed and constructed to be relocatable and transportable over public streets .

• Floor area of 500 square feet or less when measured at the most exterior walls .

• Sited upon a temporary foundation in a manner that is designed to permit easy removal .

• Designed to be removed within three (3) years of installation .

January 2019 | 17

Figure 8: Top Ten Landowners for Publicly-Owned Parcels Suitable for Housing Near Transit

Source: MTC

Publicly-Owned LandLandowner Number of Parcels Total Acres

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District 91 229

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority(VTA) 26 178

State of California 17 42

City/County of San Francisco 18 26

San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) 11 18

Union City Community Redevelopment 6 15

County of Santa Clara 7 15

City of Oakland 19 10

City of San Jose 5 8

Suisun City 17 8

Total 217 548

18 | CASA Compact

Compact Element #9 — Funding and Financing the CASA Compact Brief Summary Raise $1 .5 billion in new revenue annually from a broad range of sources, including property owners, developers, employers, local governments and the taxpayers, to fund implementation of the CASA Compact . While not all revenue ideas in Figure 9 will be implemented, no one sector would bear the burden on its own . No more than one revenue idea should be implemented under each of the five categories .

Desired Effect The Compact identifies a range of strategies to protect tenants, preserve affordability and produce new units . Many of the strategies, such as “Access to Legal Counsel,” building 14,000 new subsidized housing units annually, and preserving 26,000 market-rate units as permanently subsidized units for lower-income households, require an infusion of new revenue .

References and Models The entire CASA Compact

DETAILED PROPOSAL Funding gap CASA estimates that the funding gap to implement the Compact is $2 .5 billion per year over the next 15 years . CASA proposes to meet $1 .5 billion of this deficit with regional and local self-help measures . The remainder would be funded from additional state and federal sources . Any regional impositions that duplicate similar local impositions shall be reduced proportionally .

Potential sources New revenue could be raised through fees or taxes . In principle, new revenue would be raised from a range of sources to spread the responsibility among different sectors of the economy . These sources may include property owners, developers, employers, local governments and taxpayers . CASA also recommends exploring with other stakeholders whether a ‘mega measure’ involving transportation and housing could be pursued . The Compact identifies a menu of options (for further details see Figure 9)

A . Vacant Homes Tax levied on property owners;

B . Parcel Tax levied on property owners (residential and commercial);

C . Commercial Linkage Fee charged to developers;

D . Gross Receipts Tax levied on employers;

E . Head Tax levied on employers;

F . Revenue Set Asides for Redevelopment Agencies (local governments);

G . Revenue Sharing Contribution into a region-wide housing program for local governments;

H . 1/4-cent Sales Tax; and

I . General Obligation Bonds, reissued every five years .

Allocation formula New revenues would be allocated by the following shares:

• Up to 10 percent for local jurisdiction incentives (including funding for hiring more building inspectors);

• Up to 10 percent for tenant protection services;

• Up to 20 percent for preservation; and

• A minimum of 60 percent for subsidized housing production .

Distribution formula New revenues would be distributed by the following shares (total expenditures would still meet the allocation formula (see above), and be subject to objective performance standards and outcomes):

• 75 percent to county of origin (return to source); and

• 25 percent to a regional program (revenue-sharing) .

Labor Standards Public funding through CASA shall include a requirement for trained apprentices and prevailing wages . Projects under a certain size should be required to comply with existing wage and labor laws and standards .

Administration Revenue collection and disbursement would be managed by the Regional Housing Enterprise (RHE) described in Compact Element #10 . New revenue would be authorized based on fund source but may include state enabling legislation, a decision of the RHE board, or a vote of the people in the Bay Area .

January 2019 | 19

Figure 9: Funding Options

Empl

oyer

s

$200

millio

n

0.1%-

0.75%

Gros

s Rec

eipts

Tax,

varia

ble ra

tes ba

sed o

n sec

tor

and f

irm si

ze, re

gion-w

ide

Almos

t half

the j

urisd

iction

s in

the Ba

y Area

charg

e som

e form

of

gross

rece

ipts t

ax, o

ften a

s a

busin

ess t

ax

Small

busin

esse

s wou

ld be

ex

empt

from

the ta

x. Em

ploye

rs in

a juri

sdict

ions w

ith an

exist

ing

tax w

ill ge

t a cr

edit

38 ju

risdic

tions

in th

e Bay

Area

ha

ve a

comm

ercial

linka

ge fe

e, wit

h a m

edian

of $1

0 per

sq. ft

.

Deve

lope

rs

$200

millio

n

$5-$2

0 per

sq. ft

.Co

mmerc

ial Li

nkag

e Fee

on

new

cons

tructi

on; v

ariab

le rat

es ba

sed o

n num

ber o

f wo

rkers

at loc

ation

, jobs

-hous

ing

ratio

of ho

st jur

isdict

ion, a

nd

locati

on w

ithin

or ou

tside

trans

it-se

rved a

reas,

region

-wide

Loca

l Go

vern

men

ts

Juris

dictio

ns w

ith an

exist

ing

linka

ge fe

e (wh

ich is

set a

side f

or ho

using

) will

get a

cred

it

Taxp

ayer

s

Poten

tial N

ew So

urce

s of R

even

ueTa

rget: $

1.5 bi

llion p

er ye

ar

Menu

of F

undi

ng S

ourc

es to

Impl

emen

t the

Com

pact

$200

millio

n

25 pe

rcent

Rede

velop

ment

Reve

nue S

et-As

ide fo

r affo

rdable

hous

ing in

TP

As (in

cludin

g port

ion fo

r sc

hools

and s

pecia

l dist

ricts)

, sta

tewide

Form

er Re

deve

lopme

nt Ag

encie

s were

requ

ired t

o set

aside

20 pe

rcent

of the

ir rev

enue

tow

ards a

fforda

ble ho

using

Prop

erty

Own

ers

$400

millio

n

1/4-ce

nt Sa

les Ta

x, reg

ion-w

ide

Most

jurisd

iction

have

loca

l sale

s tax

es. C

ould

be lin

ked t

o “po

int of

sa

le” an

d e-co

mmerc

e leg

islati

on. C

ould

be fo

lded i

nto a

“meg

a-mea

sure”

that

includ

es

fundin

g for

trans

porta

tion

Phila

nthr

opy

CZI-T

SFF I

nitiat

ivePo

licy a

nd In

frastr

uctur

e Fun

ds

Key

$100

millio

n

1 perc

ent

Vaca

nt Ho

mes T

axon

the

asse

ssed

value

of va

cant

home

, reg

ion-w

ide

Vanc

ouve

r ado

pted a

n Emp

ty Ho

mes T

ax of

1 pe

rcent

in 20

16Oa

kland

adop

ted a

Vaca

nt Pr

opert

y (pa

rcel) T

ax of

$3,00

0 to

6,000

in 20

18

Voter

App

roval

State

Legis

lation

Polic

y Ben

efit

Fee I

mpos

ition

$100

millio

n

$48 p

er ye

arPa

rcel T

ax, re

gion-w

ide

Bay A

rea ap

prove

d Mea

sure

AA

for $1

2 per

year

in 20

16$2

00 m

illion

$10 p

er sq

. ft.

Flat C

omme

rcial

Linka

ge Fe

eon

new

cons

tructi

on, re

gion-w

ide

$100

millio

n

20 pe

rcent

Reve

nue S

harin

g Con

tributi

on

from

future

prop

erty t

ax gr

owth,

reg

ion-w

ide

Minn

eapo

lis-S

t. Pau

l ado

pted a

se

ven-c

ounty

Fisc

al Di

spari

ties

Prog

ram (ta

x-bas

e sha

ring)

in 19

71 th

at po

ols 40

perce

nt of

future

reve

nue i

ncrea

se

$200

millio

n

$40-1

20 pe

r job

Head

Tax;

varia

ble ra

tes ba

sed

on nu

mber

of em

ploye

es, jo

bs-

hous

ing ra

tioan

d tran

sit ac

cess

, reg

ion-w

ide

Moun

tain V

iew ad

opted

a He

ad

Tax o

f up t

o $14

9 in 2

018

$100

millio

n

5-Yr. T

ermGe

neral

Obli

gatio

n Bon

ds,

issue

d by a

regio

nal h

ousin

g en

terpri

se, re

newe

d eve

ry fiv

e ye

ars, re

gion-w

ide

20 | CASA Compact

Compact Element #10 — Regional Housing Enterprise Brief Summary Establish a regional leadership entity to implement the CASA Compact, track and report progress, and provide incentives and technical assistance . The entity must be governed by an independent board with representation from key stakeholder groups that helped develop the Compact . The housing entity would not play a regulatory/enforcement role .

Desired Effect Existing regional agencies either do not have the mandate (e .g ., the Metropolitan Transportation Commission) or the resources/tools (e .g ., the Association of Bay Area Governments) to directly tackle the region’s pressing displacement and affordable housing crisis . The CASA Compact will set a bold region-wide agenda for addressing protection of existing tenants, preservation of existing affordable units and production of both market-rate and subsidized units . To implement this agenda, a broad coalition of stakeholders, who have helped shape the CASA Compact, must stay engaged with state legislative advocacy, building support for raising new revenue and financing programs, tracking and monitoring progress, keeping the public engaged, and taking a regional approach to challenges such as homelessness . A regional approach can balance inequities and imbalances across multiple jurisdictions that have to contend with varying market strengths, fiscal challenges and staff expertise .

Models New York City Housing Development Corporation (housing finance); Twin Cities (revenue-sharing)

References The entire CASA Compact

DETAILED PROPOSAL Board Structure and Governance CASA recommends establishing a Regional Housing Enterprise (RHE) to coordinate and lead implementation of the CASA Compact . State law should establish an independent board, with broad representation from MTC, ABAG and key stakeholder groups that helped develop the CASA Compact . See Figure 10 for a graphic depiction of the RHE .

Authority The state should form the RHE through an act of legislation and give it authority to collect new revenue (through fees or taxes); disburse the revenue to programs and projects in the expenditure plans (consistent with the CASA Compact); purchase, lease and hold land; and provide direct assistance . The RHE will not have regulatory authority .

Roles and Responsibilities

Revenue administration and debt issuance – Using the authority to levy fees and seek voter approval to impose taxes for housing, the RHE may collect and disburse new funding, issue debt as needed, and allocate funding to protection, preservation and production programs, as laid out in the CASA Compact .

Land leasing and disposition – The RHE may act on behalf of the related public agency to lease or purchase land for housing development and assemble parcels, when appropriate . The RHE may hold and bank land, based on market conditions .

Monitoring and reporting – The RHE will coordinate with MTC/ABAG and local jurisdictions to collect specified data (including on local housing performance), conduct research and analysis, and disseminate information as part of its monitoring and reporting role . The RHE may also conduct an evaluation of its program to improve stated CASA outcomes .

Enhanced technical assistance – The RHE may coordinate with MTC/ABAG to provide extensive support and technical assistance to local jurisdictions (especially smaller jurisdictions with limited staff capacity), education and awareness for stakeholders (such as tenants and landlords), and communication materials for the broader public .

Oversight of protections programs – While the RHE will not have an administrative role in implementing tenant protection policies, the board would provide oversight when allocating funding .

Staffing The RHE will be supported by the consolidated staff of MTC/ABAG, with additional staff added in specialized areas such as debt issuance, land leasing and disposition, financing projects, etc .

Administration This state-enabled policy package in the CASA Compact will be implemented by the RHE . Some capacity would be needed at the local and county-level to implement the protection strategies .

January 2019 | 21

Figure 10: Regional Housing Enterprise

Regional Housing Enterprise

Regional Housing Enterprise Governance

Revenue Administration

and Debt Issuance

Land Leasing and Disposition

o Independent board w/ representation from MTC, ABAGand key stakeholders

o Supported by MTC/ABAG consolidated staff (with additions inspecialized areas such as debt issuance, land leasing, etc.)

Legislative Reform andAdvocacy

Enhanced Technical Assistance

Regional Housing Enterprise Roles

RHNA and PBA

Data, Researchand Technical

Assistance

TransportationConditioning,

OBAG, TOAH,NOAH, HIP

7

Racial

MTC/ABAG Roles and Responsibilities

EquityMonitoring and

Reporting

22 | CASA Compact

Calls for Action The CASA Compact sets a bold region-wide agenda for addressing the protection of existing tenants, preservation of existing affordable units and production of both market-rate and subsidized units . The CASA Compact Elements represent key reforms that were developed through an intensive 18-month process encompassing multiple stakeholders and constituencies . Supportive state action on the issues outlined below in concert with the implementation of the CASA Compact will fundamentally “turn the tide” on the Bay Area’s housing crisis .

Call for Action: Redevelopment 2.0

Background: The elimination of redevelopment agencies in California severely restricted the production of affordable housing and market rate housing in the Bay Area . Prior to dissolution, redevelopment agencies in the region provided $200 million in annual funding for affordable housing that was highly leveraged with other funding sources . In addition, redevelopment agencies provided funding, expertise and infrastructure to advance the production of market rate housing in mixed-use, infill developments . CASA supports the development of a new redevelopment framework to advance the production of extremely low, very low, and low-income housing, and to leverage funding for mixed income, infill housing .

CASA Call for Action: Pass legislation enabling the re-establishment of redevelopment in California to provide a significant source of new funding for affordable and mixed income development . Redevelopment agencies should be focused on development activities that are audited regularly, with local projects subject to state level reviews . A new redevelopment framework in California should reinforce a strong link between housing and jobs and transit . Funding should be designed to leverage other sources, including new regional funding through the implementation of the CASA Compact .

References: The entire CASA Compact

Call for Action: Lower the Voter Threshold for Housing Funding Measures

Background: Bay Area voters have demonstrated — through their past approval of major transportation, school, housing, and water bonds — that they understand the importance of investing in the region’s future . Although Bay Area voters have passed a significant number of funding measures to expand the supply of affordable housing, on too many occasions an overwhelming majority of voters have supported new funding but the final tally fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for approval under current state law . When provided the opportunity, voters supported lowering the voter threshold for school bonds to a 55 percent vote . The well-being of California’s children was a motivating factor in lowering the voter threshold for school funding . Ensuring that future generations, our children and grandchildren, have the housing opportunities they will need to remain in the Bay Area is a central purpose of the CASA Compact .

CASA Call for Action: Pass legislation that will provide voters statewide with the opportunity to apply a 55 percent threshold for investments in affordable housing and housing production . This legislative priority is critical to the successful implementation of the CASA Compact — and to the Bay Area’s prosperity and quality of life .

References: The entire CASA Compact

Call for Action: Fiscalization of Land Use

Background: Under Proposition 13, local jurisdictions in California are “paid more” for commercial land uses than for housing . This “fiscalization of land use” is a central factor in the Jobs-Housing Imbalance that exists in the Bay Area resulting in long commutes, traffic congestion and a diminished quality of life for millions of Bay Area residents . The California Tax Code in effect punishes cities that build more housing and rewards cities that build commercial space without commensurate housing for workers and their families . To address the revenue imbalance related to new housing, jurisdictions have raised impact fees and other development requirements that make housing even more expensive so that cities and counties may maintain infrastructure and provide for the needs of existing residents .

CASA Call for Action: Pass legislation that will return e-commerce/internet sales tax revenues to the point of sale — not the point of distribution as currently mandated — to provide cities that have a significant residential base with a commensurate fiscal stimulus for new housing . Also pass legislation that will change the Proposition 13 property tax allocation formula to provide jurisdictions building more housing with a higher share of property tax revenue .

References: CASA Elements # 9 and # 10 .

January 2019 | 23

Call for Action: Homelessness

Background: The Bay Area has one of the largest and least sheltered homeless populations in North America . The proliferation of homeless encampments from select urban neighborhoods to locations across the region is the most visible and arguably disheartening manifestation of the Bay Area’s extreme housing affordability crisis . Although this is one of the most prosperous regions in the world, every night thousands of people sleep on our streets . The complexity and scale of homelessness in the Bay Area has increased exponentially as previously housed people including families with children, veterans, and senior citizens cannot find shelter . In the nation’s most expensive housing market, commonplace life circumstances (e .g ., illness, job loss, and separation/divorce) result in too many of our neighbors being unable to afford monthly rent, resulting in a downward spiral to homelessness .

CASA Call for Action: California is experiencing an affordability and housing crisis that is negatively impacting thousands of Californians . The work of CASA has endeavored to put forth a package of policy interventions to house the Bay Area . Homelessness is a humanitarian crisis that is deeply impacting the entire Bay Area . CASA recognizes that homelessness is a regional issue that requires alignment across geographies in order to tackle this problem . CASA’s funding package must include resources that help produce housing for formerly homeless people, prevent homelessness when possible and make homelessness rare, brief and non-reoccurring .

References: The following CASA Elements include measures to reduce the region’s unhoused population, provide more temporary options for homeless housing, and streamline approvals of permanent homeless housing developments which are often strongly opposed by project neighbors:

CASA Elements 1,2,3 - Tenant Protections: Critical to stabilize households and reduce displacement from housing that has caused a significant rapid rise in the unhoused population .

CASA Element 4 – Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)/Tiny Homes: Create more housing options for populations vulnerable to economic setback, including seniors or their family members, disabled family members, students and Section 8 recipients, by allowing more of the smallest naturally affordable home types in every neighborhood .

CASA Elements 5, 6, 7- Up-zone and streamline to increase income restricted and market rate housing options and reduce displacement and upward rent pressure on existing homes and neighborhoods .

CASA Element 8 - Public land: Encourage immediate disposal of more public land for affordable housing to create more sites and reduce the subsidy needed .

CASA Element 9 - Public funding: More funding for the preservation and production of affordable housing, the provision for new tenant protection measures, and new permanent supportive housing .

Call for Action: Grow and Stabilize the Construction Labor Force

Background: Growing the construction labor force and improving labor force productivity is critical to expanding the supply of housing . By increasing the safety and desirability of construction work, and thereby expanding the pool of available workers and contractors, we can grow the labor force without which we cannot increase housing production . The following are recommended by CASA as a starting point . We also recommend ongoing work to implement the CASA recommendations in a manner which creates an effective and coordinated regional and State response to the need for a larger construction labor force .

CASA Call for Action:

1 . Grow the workforce by increasing apprentice training, placement, and payment of prevailing wages when direct public funding, public land, fee abatement, tax abatement, CEQA exemptions, and other fiscal/economic development incentives are provided for housing (Compact items 7, 8, 9) .

2 . Discourage the underground economy and require compliance with existing wage and workforce laws (Compact items 4, 5) .

3 . Create a CASA/State labor workgroup charged with coordinating implementation of CASA policies and needed labor force expansion consistent with CASA principles .

4 . Call upon the State to use its workforce development and training programs to improve the construction employment pipeline and create improved pathways from secondary education into apprentice training programs .

References: Compact Elements 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 .

24 | CASA Compact

Local Best Practices This section describes local best practices that are relevant to the CASA Compact .

Protection, Preservation and Production (3-Ps) Framework While many jurisdictions in the Bay Area focus on one or two of three Ps, the City of Oakland was one of the first to codify the 3-P framework in a citywide policy developed through a multi-stakeholder process . The underlying policy outcome for Oakland was to address housing insecurity in a rapidly changing community that faces both historic disinvestment as well as very high displacement pressures .

City of Oakland In 2016, the Oakland Housing Cabinet developed a comprehensive plan, called Oakland at Home – Recommendations for Implementing A Roadmap Toward Equity, to address the city’s chronic housing affordability and homelessness crisis . The plan outlines a three-pronged strategy to protect renters, preserve existing affordable housing by taking it off the speculative real estate market and produce more affordable and market-rate housing . The plan identifies several strategies under each “P” designed to significantly improve housing affordability in Oakland . CASA borrowed this concept from Oakland’s plan to form the three Ps framework .

Rent Stabilization 13 jurisdictions in the Bay Area have adopted some form of rent stabilization policies . This section highlights two such examples, in the City of Richmond and County of Sonoma .

City of Richmond In 2016, Richmond residents approved Measure L, which established the Richmond Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction and Homeowner Protection Ordinance . The ordinance applies to all multifamily properties, including duplexes . The annual rent increase is set at 100% of the Consumer Price Index . Landlords are required to file all notices of rent increase, termination of tenancy, and change of terms of tenancy notices with the Rent Program . Landlords and tenants may petition the Rent Board for an Individual Rent Adjustment .

The city established a Rent Board, an appointed governing body, and a Rent Program Department to administer the program . The department is set up to function on a cost-recovery basis, with no financial assistance from the city’s general funds . Funding for the department comes from the Rental Housing Fee, which must be paid by all Richmond landlords on an annual basis .

City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma On October 9, 2017, the Governor of California issued an Executive Order declaring a state of emergency in Napa and Sonoma Counties due to widespread damage caused by wildfires . California Penal Code section 396 prohibits price gouging (defined as increases over 10%) for necessary goods and services after the governor declares a state of emergency, including rental housing and hotels .

The City of Santa Rosa adopted additional protections for tenants, which allow renters to file civil lawsuits for violations . The county also adopted protections for tenants in mobile home parks . In addition, the county adopted several Urgency Ordinances to address the immediate need for housing for persons displaced by the wildfires . The Urgency Ordinance allows: the use of recreational vehicles and trailers as homes, with an emergency temporary permit; a Safe Parking Program for RVs, trailers and campers, to be parked overnight on county-owned land (basic services such as bathrooms, showers, and warming stations are provided); year-round occupancy in seasonal farmworker housing; replacement schools and child care centers in specific zones without a use permit; and long-term rental of bed and breakfasts, inns, resorts .

Just Cause Eviction Protections Ten jurisdictions in the Bay Area have already adopted some form of just cause eviction protections for renters . This section highlights one such example, in the City of East Palo Alto .

City of East Palo Alto East Palo Alto has adopted both a Just Cause for Eviction as well as a Rent Stabilization Ordinance to protect tenants in the city from harassment and displacement due to rising market pressures on the city’s existing housing stock . The just cause policy applies to both mobile home parks and residential rental units, including single family dwellings . The ordinance identifies fourteen just causes for eviction, establishes a noticing and filing requirement (with the city rent board) and gives tenants the right to request documentation of all rent payments and charges . The program is funded entirely through fees, half of which are passed on to tenants .

January 2019 | 25

Access to Legal Counsel

City and County of San Francisco In June of 2018, San Francisco voters approved Proposition F that guarantees free legal representation for any renter facing eviction, regardless of income . Proposition F calls for full-scope representation within thirty days of an eviction notice or filing of an unlawful detainer action . San Francisco estimates that as many as thirty-five hundred tenants a year will be eligible for the free services, for which it earmarked $5 .8 million over the first two years of the program . San Francisco also currently spends $4 .4 million a year on eviction-related services such as counseling, education, outreach and basic no-cost or low-cost legal services .

Rent Assistance Twenty-six jurisdictions in the Bay Area provide some form of tenant assistance . This section highlights one such example, in the County of Sonoma .

County of Sonoma The county’s Home Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program (TBA) provides rent subsidies to homeless families in shelters, survivors of domestic violence, seniors and persons with HIV/AIDS . Only very low-income individuals are eligible to receive this assistance . They are referred by emergency shelters, transitional shelters, non-profit service providers, the County’s Human Services Department and the Division of Adult and Aging Services . The TBA program is administered similarly to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Section 8 program .

Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Affordable Units Thirty jurisdictions in the Bay Area have established some form of a preservation program to support acquisition, rehabilitation and protection of affordable units occupied by low-income renters . This section highlights one such example, in the City and County of San Francisco .

City and County of San Francisco Launched by the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development in 2014, San Francisco’s Small Sites Program (SSP) is an acquisition and rehabilitation loan program for small multifamily rental buildings . The program was created to protect and establish long-term affordable housing throughout San Francisco . SSP is funded through multiple sources, including voter-approved bonds, inclusionary housing fees, and the city’s Housing Trust Fund . As of May 2018, the program has acquired 160 units in 25 buildings, serving 327 residents that earn less than 65% of the Area Median Income . The units are located in the following neighborhoods: the Mission District, Downtown/Civic Center, South of Market, Castro/Upper Market, Haight Ashbury, Bernal Heights and Richmond .

Homebuyer Assistance Twenty-eight jurisdictions in the Bay Area have established some form of a homebuyer program . This section highlights two such examples, in the cities of Napa and Oakland .

City of Napa Napa’s Down Payment Assistance Program, funded with grants from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, provides assistance to lower-income first time home buyers in the form of a silent (deferred) loan of up to $150,000 . To qualify, an applicant must meet income and credit restrictions and cannot have owned a home in the last three years . Homes must be located within city limits and cannot be bigger than 3 bedrooms and 2 baths .

City of Oakland Hello Housing, a regional non-profit organization, has partnered with the City of Oakland and the Alameda County Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office, to acquire and convert formerly blighted and tax-defaulted properties into permanently affordable housing for low-and-moderate income residents . Hello Housing and three local developers have acquired 26 vacant properties, a majority of which will be developed into single-family homes for ownership and two properties into multifamily affordable rental units to house approximately 15 to 20 families . Construction on the first homes is now underway with occupancy on many of the homeownership properties expected in late 2018 and early 2019 .

26 | CASA Compact

Permit Streamlining Fifty jurisdictions in the Bay Area have adopted some form of permit streamlining policies . This section highlights two such examples, in the County of Sonoma and the City of San Jose .

City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma In the aftermath of the wildfires in Sonoma in 2017, the City of Santa Rosa adopted multiple policies to expedite the permitting process for those who wanted to rebuild . These included: establishing a Resilient City Permit Center with dedicated staff; exemptions from environmental review; expansion of damaged nonconforming residential structures to added living areas, ADUs, and JADUs; increasing the allowable residential floor area in mixed-use projects from 50 to 80 percent; and delaying collection of fees until near occupancy . The county also established a Resiliency Permit Center to expedite permitting, and relaxed rules related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) .

City of San Jose In 2014, the City of San Jose formed an ad-hoc committee to explore permit streamlining for small businesses as well as for major projects . Based on the committee’s recommendations, the city created a planning desk dedicated to small projects and recently established an electronic plan review system to simplify permitting . The electronic system has resulted in time and cost savings for both the city as well as the applicant . The system provides real-time updates on the status of the approval process .

Fee Waiver Twenty-six jurisdictions in the Bay Area offer some form of fee waivers to housing developers . This section highlights one such example, in the City of Sunnyvale .

City of Sunnyvale Sunnyvale charges all new rental housing projects an impact fee of $9 to $18 per habitable square feet . If a developer opts to provide affordable units on-site instead of paying the housing impact fee, the city credits the developer $300,000 per very low-income unit and $150,000 for every low-income unit, up to the total housing impact fee amount owed by the project . In case any fee obligation remains after the affordable unit developer credits are applied, the developer may opt to provide additional affordable units to reduce the fee to zero .

These developer credits are based on the subsidy amounts required to develop affordable units, which the 2014 rental impact fee nexus study determined to be $302,496 for a very low-income unit and $146,233 for a low-income unit . The city also waives the park and recreation fee for affordable units .

Housing Overlay Zoning Twenty-four jurisdictions in the Bay Area have adopted some form of a zoning overlay for housing projects . This section highlights one such example, in the City of Menlo Park .

City of Menlo Park Menlo Park’s Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) zone was established to encourage the development of housing for low, very low and extremely low-income households on housing opportunity sites identified in the city’s adopted Housing Element . The AHO establishes development standards for these sites and is designed to benefit all affordable housing projects, including market-rate developments that provide a higher share of low- and very low-income units than what is called for in the State’s Density Bonus Program .

New Revenue and Organizational Capacity for Housing Multiple cities and counties in the Bay Area have raised new revenue for housing in the last two election cycles and/or adopted a regional or sub-regional approach to solving the housing crisis . This section highlights four such examples, in the counties of Santa Clara, San Francisco, Alameda and Sonoma .

County of Santa Clara In June 2016, Santa Clara voters approved Measure A, a $950 million affordable housing bond program to build and preserve 5,000 affordable housing units countywide . The bond proceeds will help stabilize housing for the county’s most vulnerable populations including veterans, seniors, the disabled, low and moderate-income individuals or families, foster youth, victims of abuse, the homeless and individuals suffering from mental health or substance abuse illnesses . Measure A priorities include advancing supportive housing for special needs populations, including homeless and chronically homeless persons and increasing housing supply for extremely low-income populations .

As of June 2018, the first year of implementation, the county approved $111 million for 10 projects that will add more than 800 multifamily units in 6 cities . The county also approved $25 million for a first-time homebuyer program .

January 2019 | 27

City and County of San Francisco In November 2018, San Francisco voters approved Proposition C, a business tax measure, which will generate up to $300 million per year to fund homelessness services . Businesses with over $50 million in gross annual receipts will pay a tax equal to 0 .175 percent to 0 .69 percent of their gross receipts . Businesses with over $1 billion in gross annual receipts and those with administrative offices in San Francisco will pay 1 .5 percent of payroll expenses . In June 2018, San Francisco voters approved Measure F, which will provide tax-funded legal help to tenants facing eviction . The expanded legal services is estimated to cost the city $5 .6 million a year .

In November 2016, San Francisco voters approved Proposition C, which authorized the city to repurpose $261 million in unused general obligation bond funding that voters originally approved in 1992 for seismic upgrades . Under Proposition C, bonds would be used to acquire and rehabilitate multi-unit properties and convert them to permanently affordable housing .

In November 2015, San Francisco voters approved Proposition A, a $310 million General Obligation Bond for affordable housing, to finance the construction, acquisition, improvement, rehabilitation, preservation and repair of affordable housing for low and middle income households . The bond will address pressing housing needs by: investing in neighborhoods; developing and acquiring housing for a broad population, from families to seniors; transitional-aged youth to single working adults; and veterans to disabled households; and, meeting housing needs through a range of activities, including new multi-family construction, acquisition of existing apartment buildings, SRO rehabilitations, down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, and other efforts that will effectively increase the affordable housing supply .

County of Alameda In November 2016, Alameda County voters approved Measure A1, a $580 million general obligation bond to finance the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental units, loans for moderate-income homebuyers and upgrades to existing low-income housing .

City of Oakland In November 2018, Oakland voters approved Measure KK, a $600 million infrastructure bond earmarking $100 million for affordable housing . A citizen oversight committee would audit all spending from the measure .

County of Sonoma The City of Santa Rosa and the county are moving forward with establishing a joint powers authority, called the Renewal Enterprise District (RED), with the explicit goal for regionalizing housing production; pooling and leveraging financing and funding; sharing risks and benefits of development in new ways; streamlining environmental review and providing confidence in good projects; and putting equity, affordability and climate solutions in the center of local economic strategy .

When established, the RED will focus housing development in specific geographies; define project criteria for which incentives and streamlined permitting processes are appropriate; pursue new models for public-private partnerships; expand, pool, and leverage public and private financing in new ways; explore the most strategic use of publicly-owned land; and leverage the regional housing planning tools and resources of MTC/ABAG .

Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration This section highlights the unique process in San Mateo County to coordinate housing strategies across jurisdictions, including conducting a “nexus” study for setting impact fees .

The 21 Elements Effort 21 Elements is a multi-year, multi-phase collaboration of all twenty-one San Mateo County jurisdictions, along with partner agencies and stakeholder organizations . The project aims to support jurisdictions in developing, adopting, and implementing local housing policies and programs . It is a forum for sharing resources, successful strategies and best practices . The project is co-sponsored and coordinated by the San Mateo County Department of Housing (DOH) and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) .

The project recognizes that cities in the county often struggle with similar housing issues and consider similar solutions . 21 Elements helps those cities find policies that are right for them, working with their neighbors in a supportive, cooperative environment . Respecting local control, 21 Elements makes it easier to adopt innovative policies that address important housing needs . From affordable housing to accessory dwelling units, 21 Elements has resources to help .

Grand Nexus Study Through a multi-jurisdiction collaborative process, 15 cities in San Mateo County and the City of Palo Alto embarked on developing a nexus study for their respective linkage fee programs . This project, which came to be known as the Grand Nexus Study, reduced costs by 75 percent and helped establish best practices . Customized, jurisdiction-specific reports focusing on local conditions were completed and provided to each participating city in the second half of 2015 . (continued on next page)

28 | CASA Compact

Affordable Housing Needs Allocation In the fourth Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle, 11 of San Mateo County’s 21 jurisdictions engaged in “housing unit trades .” Five of these jurisdictions accepted additional unit allocations for proposed development adjacent to their city limits . Three additional jurisdictions who had already adopted a land use plan that calls for more housing development also accepted additional allocations . In all, these trades covered a total of 396 units, or 2 .5% of the total 8-year allocation for the county . While numerically insignificant, the trades represent an important accomplishment for these 11 jurisdictions as they work together on other multiple efforts to meet the county’s housing crisis .

January 2019 | 29

Signatures

Fred Blackwell CASA Co-Chair

Chief Executive Officer, The San Francisco

Foundation

Leslye Corsiglia CASA Co-Chair

Executive Director, Silicon Valley @ Home

Michael Covarrubias CASA Co-Chair

Chair and Chief Executive Officer, TMG Partners

Bob AlvaradoNorthern California Carpenters

Regional Council

Kofi BonnerFivePoint

London BreedCity/County of San Francisco

Keith CarsonAlameda County

Stuart CohenTransForm

Julie CombsCity of Santa Rosa

Dave CorteseSanta Clara County

Grace CrunicanBART

Matthew FranklinMidPen Housing

Ariane HoganGenentech

Sam LiccardoCity of San José

Jake MackenzieMTC

Michael MatthewsFacebook

Rebecca ProzanGoogle

David RabbittABAG

Dave ReganSEIU

Libby SchaafCity of Oakland

Ellen WuUrban Habitat

30 | CASA Compact

Appendix A — CASA Leadership Fred Blackwell, CASA Co-Chair Chief Executive Officer | The San Francisco Foundation

Fred Blackwell is a visionary leader working to ensure shared prosperity, innovation, and equity in the Bay Area . As CEO of The San Francisco Foundation, he leads one of the largest community foundations in the country, working hand-in-hand with donors, nonprofits, community leaders, business, and government partners in philanthropy to identify, influence, and leverage best practices and long-term solutions to make a greater impact in our community .

Mr . Blackwell currently serves on the board of the San Francisco Bay Area Super Bowl 50 Legacy Fund, on the advisory council for Berkeley’s College of Environmental Design, and as an advisor for Google Impact Challenge: Bay Area . He previously served on the boards of the California Redevelopment Association, Urban Habitat Program, LeaderSpring, SPUR, and Leadership Excellence . He holds a master’s degree in City Planning from U .C . Berkeley and a bachelor’s degree in Urban Studies from Morehouse College .

Established in 1948, The San Francisco Foundation (TSFF) is committed to serving the people of the Bay Area . As an incubator for community investment, original ideas, and passionate leadership, TSFF has become one of the nation’s largest community foundations in grant-making and assets, giving millions of dollars a year to make the Bay Area the best place it can be . Currently, TSFF is tackling widening inequality, increasing poverty, and declines in upward economic mobility despite historic levels of prosperity . Staying true to its commitment to serving the people of the Bay Area, TSFF recently launched an ambitious strategy to advance racial and economic equity across the Bay Area .

Leslye Corsiglia, CASA Co-Chair Executive Director | Silicon Valley @ Home

Leslye Corsiglia began her professional career at the California Department of Housing and Community Development, where she held several positions before taking on the challenge of overseeing the day-to-day activities of the state’s housing loan and grant programs . In that capacity, she worked to pass and then implement the first affordable housing bond initiatives, which made $550 million available for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing throughout the state .

Ms . Corsiglia joined the City of San Jose as the Department of Housing’s first Assistant Director in 1991, and then served for 14 years as the Director . While with the City, she oversaw a program that developed and improved 21,000 affordable housing units, leveraging the City’s funds with more than $2 .7 billion from public and private sources . She has served on a number of federal, state, and regional boards and currently serves on the Board of the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California . She is a dedicated housing wonk, loves policy and research, and is excited to take on the challenge of leading the new start-up venture known as SV@Home .

SV@Home is the voice for affordable housing in Silicon Valley . Based initially in the Housing Trust Silicon Valley, SV@Home is a membership organization that advocates for policies, programs, land use, and funding that lead to an increased supply of affordable housing . Additionally, SV@Home educates elected officials and the community about the need for housing and the link between housing and other quality of life outcomes, including education, health, transportation, and the environment .

One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 P: (415) 733-8500 E: fblackwell@sff .org

350 W . Julian St . #5 San Jose, CA 95110 P: (408) 780-8411 E: leslye @siliconvalleyathome .org

January 2019 | 31

Michael Covarrubias, CASA Co-Chair Chair and Chief Executive Officer | TMG Partners

Michael Covarrubias joined TMG Partners in 1988 . He oversees all of the company’s operations and has directed the company since 1995 . Prior to TMG, Mr . Covarrubias’ professional background includes 17 years with Union Bank, including commercial and real estate lending as well as administrative management . In his last position, he served as Senior Vice President and Manager of Union Bank’s Silicon Valley Regional Real Estate Center .

Mr . Covarrubias is a graduate of the University of San Francisco with a bachelor’s degree in business administration .

TMG Partners is a privately-held, full-service development company headquartered in San Francisco focusing on urban infill projects in the San Francisco Bay Area .

Its exclusive focus in the Bay Area helps the firm understand the nuances of market trends and timing . This allows TMG Partners to be highly responsive and opportunistic while contributing to the vibrancy of the communities that make up the Bay Area region .

Dr. Jennifer Martinez, Protection Work Group Moderator Executive Director | Faith in Action Bay Area

Dr. Jennifer Martinez currently leads Faith in Action Bay Area, a regional network of community and faith-based organizations . She has also been an organizer with the PICO National Network since 2001 . Dr . Martinez has a bachelor’s degree from Stanford University and a master’s degree and Ph .D . from the University of Nottingham in England . Her graduate research focused on social movement strategies in the struggle for housing and land rights in Venezuela and South Africa . In 2011, her Ph .D . won the British International Studies Association thesis of the year award .

She has several published works and, in addition to being a participant in faith-based movement-building, continues to write about the ways in which social movements transform people and places .

Faith in Action Bay Area is a regional network of community and faith-based organizations working to create innovative solutions to problems facing urban and suburban communities in San Mateo and San Francisco Counties . Faith in Action Bay Area has successfully worked to increase access to health care, improve public schools, make neighborhoods safer, build affordable housing, redevelop communities, and revitalize democracy .

The organization helps engage ordinary people in public life, building a strong legacy of leadership in local communities across the region, and is part of PICO, a national network of faith-based organizing groups . Faith in Action Bay Area is non-partisan, multi-faith, and multicultural .

100 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94101 P: (415) 772-5900 E: michael .c @tmgpartners .com

1336 Arroyo Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 P: (650) 796-4160 E: Jennifer @picocalifornia .org

32 | CASA Compact

Linda Mandolini, Protection Work Group Moderator President | Eden Housing

Linda Mandolini has served Eden Housing as a Project Developer, as Director of Real Estate Development, and since 2001 as President . She oversees affordable housing production, resident support services, and property management components of the organization, and a staff of more than 340 employees . She is guided in her work by Eden’s active, volunteer Board of Directors .

Under Ms . Mandolini’s strong leadership, Eden has become one of the most productive and successful nonprofit affordable housing developers in California . Eden has received numerous awards including being named as a Best Place to Work in the Bay Area in 2012, 2015, and 2016 and Healthiest Employers in the Bay Area by the San Francisco Business Times for the past five years in a row (2012-2016) .

Ms . Mandolini received her A .B . from Wheaton College in Massachusetts and earned a master’s of Business Administration at Boston University .

Eden Housing revitalizes California communities through its affordable housing development and property management activities, through the partnerships it establishes and the investments it makes in California neighborhoods, and through the resident services programs it provides to meet the needs of its residents .

Since its founding in 1968, Eden Housing has developed or acquired 7,450 affordable housing units in nearly 100 properties that have provided homes for more than 65,000 people . Eden currently has more than 1,000 units in its immediate pipeline .

Eden’s housing now includes rental apartments, cooperatives, and supportive living environments for families, seniors, and people with disabilities . Eden has so far partnered with 29 cities in 10 California counties and it is rapidly expanding its geographical operations to new communities, including the greater Sacramento area, the Central Valley, and Southern California .

Derecka Mehrens, Production Work Group Moderator Executive Director | Working Partnerships USA

Derecka Mehrens, Executive Director at Working Partnerships USA, brings 15 years of community organizing, civic engagement, and public policy experience working in communities of color and with low- and moderate-income families .

Under Ms . Mehrens’ leadership, Working Partnerships USA co- founded Silicon Valley Rising, a coordinated regional campaign to inspire a tech-driven economy where all workers, their families, and communities thrive . The unprecedented labor-faith-community alliance is working to build a new economic model that rebuilds the middle class, to raise wages and workplace standards for all workers in this valley, and to address a regional housing crisis that is pushing families and children to live in garages, cars, or near creek beds in order to survive .

Ms . Mehrens graduated from the University of Oregon with a bachelor’s degree in Sociology, History, and International Studies .

Working Partnerships USA is a community organization that drives the movement for a just economy by bringing together public policy innovation and the power of grassroots organizing .

Working Partnerships USA builds the capacity of workers, low-income neighborhoods, and communities of color to lead and govern . Based in Silicon Valley, it tackles the root causes of inequality and poverty by leading collaborative campaigns for quality jobs, healthy communities, equitable growth, and vibrant democracy .

22645 Grand Street Hayward, CA 94541 P: (510) 582-1460 E: lmandolini @edenhousing .org

2102 Almaden Road Suite 107 San Jose, CA 95125 P: (408) 809-2120 E: derecka@wpusa .org

January 2019 | 33

Denise Pinkston, Production Work Group Moderator Housing Committee Co-chair | Bay Area Council

Denise Pinkston has over 30 years of experience in real estate including acquisitions, asset and construction management, marketing, leasing, planning/entitlements, transit and green building program development, and public affairs . Ms . Pinkston was named one of the Bay Area’s Most Influential Women in Bay Area Business by the San Francisco Business Times in 2012 and 2013 and was named to their Forever Influential Honor Roll in 2014 . Ms . Pinkston teaches real estate at the Lorry I . Lokey Graduate School of Business at Mills College .

Ms . Pinkston attended the University of California, Berkeley where she earned a bachelor’s degree in History and a master’s degree in City and Regional Planning .

The Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored, public-policy advocacy organization for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area . The Council proactively advocates for a strong economy, a vital business environment, and a better quality of life for everyone who lives here .

Steve Heminger, CASA Convener Executive Director | Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Steve Heminger is Executive Director of MTC and responsible for the administration of more than $2 billion per year in funding for the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the Bay Area’s surface transportation network .

Mr . Heminger was appointed by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi to serve on the “National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission,” which helped chart the future course for the federal transportation program . As Chair of the Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee, he also oversaw construction of the new east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, the largest transportation project in California history . In addition, he is a member of the Board of Trustees for the Mineta Transportation Institute and of the Executive Committee for the Transportation Research Board .

Mr . Heminger received a bachelor’s degree from Georgetown University and a master’s degree from the University of Chicago .

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) connects the nine-county Bay Area’s communities by allocating regional, state, and federal funds for transportation projects, planning for the future, and coordinating the participation of governments and residents in the planning process .

The Commission’s central purpose is to make sure that the transportation networks that connect the residents and communities within the Bay Area region function smoothly and efficiently . Its job is to plan responsibly to meet the mobility needs of residents, now and in the future .

353 Sacramento St ., 10th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 P: (415) 946-8777 E: dpinkston@tmgpartners .com

375 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94105 P: (415) 778-5228 E: sheminger@bayareametro .gov

Appendix B — Committee MembersSteering Committee Members Technical Committee Members

Name Organization Name Organization

Bob AlvaradoNorthern California Carpenters Regional Council

Robert ApodacaCalifornia Community Builders

Kofi Bonner FivePoint Ophelia Basgal Terner Research CenterLondon Breed City/County of San Francisco Michele Byrd City of Oakland

Keith Carson Alameda County Andreas CluverBuilding and Construction Trades Council

Stuart Cohen TransForm Jonathan Fearn GREYSTARJulie Combs City of Santa Rosa Jacky Morales Ferrand City of San José

Dave Cortese Santa Clara County Amie FishmanNon-Profit Housing Association

Grace Crunican BART Caitlyn Fox Chan Zuckerberg InitiativeMatthew Franklin MidPen Housing Bob Glover BIA Bay AreaAriane Hogan Genentech Rich Gross EnterpriseSam Liccardo City of San José Jennifer Hernandez Holland and Knight

Jake Mackenzie MTC Joshua HowardCalifornia Apartment Association

Michael Matthews Facebook Lynn Hutchins Goldfarb Lipman LLPRebecca Prozan Google Aimee Inglis Tenants TogetherDavid Rabbitt ABAG Janice Jensen Habitat for HumanityDave Regan SEIU Mark Kroll Saris Regis Group

Libby Schaaf City of Oakland Scott LittlehaleNor Cal Carpenters Reg . Council

Ellen Wu Urban Habitat Linda Mandolini Eden HousingDr . Jennifer Martinez PICO CaliforniaDerecka Mehrens Working Partnership, USATomiquia Moss Hamilton FamiliesMary Murtagh EAH HousingAdhi Nagraj SPURDenise Pinkston Bay Area CouncilKen Rich City/County of San Francisco

Matt SchwartzCA Housing Partnership Corp .

Doug Shoemaker Mercy HousingAbby Thorne-Lyman BARTRandy Tsuda City of Mountain ViewMatt Vander Sluis Greenbelt Alliance

Joseph VillarrealContra Costa Housing Authority

Bill Witte Related California

 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrustedsources.

From: Chion, Miriam (CPC)To: Pappas, James (CPC); Ikezoe, Paolo (CPC); Ojeda, Teresa (CPC)Subject: FW: Please OPPOSE the CASA Compact For Inclusion in Agenda Packet Jan. 31, 2019Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 12:08:28 PM

  

From: CPC-Commissions Secretary Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 11:48 AMTo: Chion, Miriam (CPC) <miriam.chion@sfgov.org>Cc: Feliciano, Josephine (CPC) <josephine.feliciano@sfgov.org>Subject: FW: Please OPPOSE the CASA Compact For Inclusion in Agenda Packet Jan. 31, 2019   Jonas P. Ionin,Director of Commission Affairs Planning Department│City & County of San Francisco1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103Direct: 415-558-6309│Fax: 415-558-6409 jonas.ionin@sfgov.orgwww.sfplanning.org 

From: David Tipton <davidrtipton@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 11:44 AMTo: Richards, Dennis (CPC) <dennis.richards@sfgov.org>; Koppel, Joel (CPC)<joel.koppel@sfgov.org>; Moore, Kathrin (CPC) <kathrin.moore@sfgov.org>; Johnson, Milicent (CPC)<milicent.johnson@sfgov.org>; Melgar, Myrna (CPC) <myrna.melgar@sfgov.org>; Rich Hillis<richhillissf@gmail.com>; 'Rodney Fong' <planning@rodneyfong.com>Cc: CPC-Commissions Secretary <commissions.secretary@sfgov.org>; Rahaim, John (CPC)<john.rahaim@sfgov.org>Subject: Please OPPOSE the CASA Compact For Inclusion in Agenda Packet Jan. 31, 2019 

 

 

 Please INCLUDE this letter in the AGENDA PACKET for January 31, 2019 Hearing OPPOSE the CASA Compact

San Francisco Planning Commissioners -

 

It is my understanding that the upcoming January 31 will concern housing issues.  

We certainly have many challenges in this area.   It would be great tragedy if, in tryingto move housing along, we failedto take care of our limited existing housing.  Sadly, the CASA compact would strangleour existing housing stock. 

Please note that Elements # 1, 2 and 3 of the CASA compact would upset anddestroy current Bay Area housing.Moreover, they have already been voted down resoundingly by the electorate. 

Honest housing providers need to be able to manage their properties for the good ofall tenants and for the good of our community. 

Element # 1 prevents a housing provider from dealing with the few bad apple tenants,which is very unfair to the many good tenants. 

Element # 2 prevents a housing provider from setting rents with respect to the everyincreasing expenses we all feel. 

The increasing costs of labor, materials, taxes and more are not trivial.  An arbitrarycap on rents would force housing providers out of business.They simply cannot continue to offer accommodations while suffering financial loss. 

Element # 3 punishes the honest housing provider, allowing an avenue for expenseextortion with no recourse.  No housing provider wants to lose tenants.This element compounds the pain and tells the housing provider to get out of thebusiness altogether. 

As you are considering how to ease our housing shortage, please do not support themis-guided Elements # 1,2 and 3 of the CASA compact. 

These items were resoundingly voted down as Proposition 10 both statewide and inthe Bay Area.  

David R. Tipton